arguments against electoral college
There have been a number of "faithless electors" in US history, though none have ever affected the outcome of an election. With this system, a few states decide the election, and those states that usually go to one party or the other by a wide margin are having the interests of the majority of their citizens honored. This was by design, but opponents of the electoral college question the foundations of these intentions. Most recently, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a particularly wide margin, but she still only won 48.2% of voters, compared to the over 50% that Barack Obama won both times. That means there must be a majority of states that agree with a specific candidate instead of allowing the people to decide who they want to have as president. With a popular vote, a close election could involve a massive recount across the whole country. Adding to the confusion, both Nebraska and Maine award their electors proportionately, giving the winner of each congressional district one elector, and awarding two to the winner of the state as a whole. The Electoral college might have been a reliable theory while the country replaced into youthful and the inhabitants replaced into strung a tactics … The potential for the electoral college to conflict with the result of the popular vote is one of the most commonly cited arguments against the electoral college. However, opponents of the electoral college can counter this argument by appealing to a system of "ranked-choice" voting, like the one already implemented in the state of Maine. It’s too complicated. So, where did the Electoral College come from, anyway? Can you solve the traveling salesman problem? 1. Uncategorised This goes along with the original intention of the way the government was structured. An appointed judiciary resolves the situation. And since doing away with the College would weaken the voice of smaller states, it’s unlikely such an amendment would ever pass. Currently, a majority of Americans support abolishing the electoral college, but because it is in the US constitution, getting rid of it will be incredibly difficult. Arguments in favor of the Electoral College Over the long run, your power as an individual voter is greater in a divided election than in a direct election. This was by design, but opponents of the electoral college question the foundations of these intentions. Proponents of the electoral college might argue that third-party voting would not be helped by a popular vote since every vote would count, each person might feel more obligated to vote for a candidate of one of the two major parties, even in what would now be seen as a safe blue or red state. Nobody would be in favor of that, and nobody should be in favor of the electoral college. However, states' rights as a concept are not easily reduced to those two odious uses of the term. There are legitimate arguments to keep the present winner-take-all system, even arguments that today’s progressive opponents of the Electoral College could appreciate. Under the Electoral College, a candidate can lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote and become president. Ruling parties have to form alliances with other parties in order to get a majority, and such a system means that a lot more viewpoints get represented in the workings of government and the crafting of legislation than the system the United States currently has. arguments against electoral college. Copyright © Science Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2021, except where noted. This has happened three times—1876, 1888 and 2000—and strikes many people as unfair. Opponents of the electoral college usually appeal to a concept of "one vote, one person." If a candidate wins 50% of … The most commonly used argument against the electoral college is that it is undemocratic. The electors can vote their conscienc… I am also an enthusiast of politics and art. In Anti-Federalist Papers 72, the anonymous Democratic-Republican Party writer argues that the issues with the Electoral College deal with the ability of electors, rather than the people, to elect the president. However, it has become a talking point for major presidential candidates after a 2000 and 2016 disparity between the popular vote and electoral majority collected. The Electoral College creates the possibility of a 269-269 tie vote, and in almost every recent election there has been a relatively credible scenario for such an outcome. However, the Electoral College is written into the US Constitution. Con 4: There’s the possibility of “rogue electors” Many states have no law requiring electors to vote the way their state has voted. Opponents of the electoral college try to dismantle this argument by pointing to the bad history that states' rights as an argument has had. In a direct election, everybody’s vote is counted at the national level. The Electoral College creates a clear winner in cases where the popular vote is very close. Arguments Against the Electoral College It's Undemocratic. Proponents of the Electoral College system normally defend it on the philosophical grounds that it: • contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president There’s no way to get rid of it without an amendment. If you live in a small state, you may go your entire life without having any influence over the presidential election. Adding to this argument, proponents of the electoral college might say that the reason we have seen a recent disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral college winner is that one party has primarily been serving the demographics of the more densely populated states of the East and West Coast, while the other party has had support from more rural states in the middle of the country. Sticking with the baseball analogy, the electoral college would be like giving a team “X” points for winning an inning (regardless of the amount they actually scored) and declaring whoever wins the adjusted score the “real winner”. Another potential weakness in the Electoral College system is the existence of so-called “faithless electors,” who for whatever reason choose to vote against their state’s chosen candidate. Within Each State, the Electoral College Betrays its Supposed Minority-Rule Values If a candidate wins 50% of the vote +1 nationwide, they may not win the presidency. However, the Electoral College is written into the US Constitution. Thus, they argue, the Electoral College protects rural states against the dominance of large states and big cities. A final argument for the electoral college is it keeps elections simple. The argument is more complex than it initially appears. Part of the debate centers on whether the system is an antiquated one. There’s no way to get rid of it without an amendment. Arguments in favor of the Electoral College, How the Electoral College Works: the Fictional Country of Artesia. The mathematical advantage to the Electoral College accumulates over the course of many, many elections. The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a compromise between electing the president via a vote in Congress only or via a popular vote only. a . Tom Cotton Stands up Against Electoral College Challengers: Would ‘Establish Unwise Precedents’ 29,942 AL DRAGO/POOL/AFP via Getty Images. Under the Electoral College, a candidate can lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote and become president. That history is summed up in two words, slavery and segregation. of america. The Electoral College was the result of a compromise, just like Congress and the Bill of Rights. Electors in these states are “unbound.” For arguments in favor of the Electoral College, go here. possibly you will possibly desire to have informed human beings what the arguments for and against are. The most common defense of the Electoral College is that it’s a kind of last-resort firewall against a manifestly unfit president. What is noteworthy is the deep partisan divisions on the questions that emerged in 2016. Part of this argument is the fact that many of these rural states are largely white, and this allows an already majority group, white Americans, to have an even greater amount of power over the government. You’ll hear these 4 arguments in defense of the Electoral College – here’s why they’re wrong March 27, 2019 6.33am EDT • Updated August 16, 2019 11.37am EDT Robert Speel , Penn State A state like Wyoming, the least populated state in the country, gets a disproportionate influence on presidential elections to what seems like an absurd degree. For better or worse, this is the system we’ve got. The interests of the minority would no longer receive protection. This belief is a myth. While proponents of the electoral college see this as a plus, opponents see it as a bad thing. This has happened three times—1876, 1888 and 2000—and strikes many people as unfair. A candidate winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college had only happened three times in the nation's history before that. Since 2000, Gallup has asked its Electoral College question six times. Some would argue this is a far superior system to the electoral college system, even if the idea of a popular vote is flawed. I've been writing about fiction and philosophy online for over six years. Many other countries have a parliamentary system, where the prime minister is appointed based on the election of the members of his party to parliament. s . Another argument against the electoral college is it places all the emphasis on a handful of swing states. See this page for an explanation. Initially, each state in the Union wanted a certain amount of autonomy from the federal government, and smaller states wanted to not be subjected to the whims of the larger states. At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. Still, there are obviously situations that we do not rely on democracy to solve the problem. The best argument against the Electoral College Contrary to conventional intellectual wisdom there are not many good ones, but this packs some real force: Starting from probabilistic simulations of likely presidential election outcomes that are similar to the output from election forecasting models, we calculate the likelihood of disputable, narrow outcomes under the Electoral College. Arguments for the Electoral College © 2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History www.gilderlehrman.org . In his eyes, the Electoral College removes the ability of the people to select their leader, and instead delegates that right to a small number of individuals. It basically is mindless that the guy with much less votes can win. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters. The Electoral College system, long a source of controversy, came under especially heavy criticism after the 2016 presidential election when Republican Donald Trump lost the nationwide popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes but won the Electoral College—and thus the presidency—by 74 electoral votes. This racial dimension is undeniable, and states' rights have been used as shields for bigots in the past. It is worth noting, however, that countries with a parliamentary system often have robust third, fourth, or even fifth parties. Matthew Boyle 3 Jan 2021 Washington, DC. Nonetheless, others continue to make the case for preserving the Electoral College in its current form, usually using one of three arguments. One issue that is usually supported by those on the left is marijuana legalization. The most commonly used argument against the electoral college is that it is undemocratic. Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout. a majority of Americans support abolishing the electoral college. The electoral college is carefully UNneeded in cutting-edge u . The intent of the electoral college was to force presidents to have to gain wide regional support, meaning that even if they get fewer votes, they are appealing to a wider net of voters across various states with different economies and interests. Even if a relevant third-party candidate emerges, it is almost impossible for them to win the presidency. Even if the states' rights arguments are taken seriously, it could be argued that there are better ways to preserve the rights of individual states than subjecting people in more populated states to the values of rural Americans to such an absurd degree. The Electoral College comprises 538 electors; each state is allowed one elector for each Representative and Senator (DC is allowed 3 electors as established by the Twenty-Third Amendment). If there is a dispute between the states of California and Nevada, the situation is not resolved by a democratic vote by the citizens of those two states. In any given year, you may not have any power at all. Electors manage the needs of the state and community instead of following the will of the general public throughout the country. Defenses of the Electoral College tend to fall into one of three broad categories, and so we’ll examine each genre in turn. Under the Electoral College, votes count only at the state level—if you vote Republican but your state goes Democrat (or vice versa), then your candidate doesn’t get any of your state’s Electoral votes—they all go to the other guy. The concept of the electoral college functions a similar way, not allowing the interests of large states to trample those of small states. Arguments for the Electoral College Proponents of the Electoral College system normally defend it on the philosophical grounds that it: contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president; enhances the status of minority interests, 1. The first and most often proposed defense of the electoral college is that it defends states' rights. This is partially a partisan issue. This also takes the individual voter out of the direct election of the prime minister, but it places emphasis on the election of each individual member of parliament. Science Buzz is supported by the National Science Foundation. With this system, each state appoints a number of electors, based on the number of representatives each state has in both houses of congress, and these electors pick the president. Giving the presidency to a candidate who could not secure the majority of the voters over one who won the electoral college might seem equally problematic to some people. Home / Uncategorised / arguments against electoral college. In the past five presidential elections, a Republican won the electoral college, while a Democrat won the popular vote. The electoral college has been subject to much furious debate in recent years. Proponents could also point out that only once has the winner of the popular vote who lost the electoral college won a majority of the country's voters. The primary benefit of the electoral college is that it works to protect the best interests of the minority in every election. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) became the first Republican senator on Sunday night who is actually a supporter of President Donald Trump’s agenda to oppose a challenge of the electoral college, issuing a … Even if the states' rights arguments … Another interesting argument against the electoral college is that it makes third-party voting irrelevant. Criticism against the Electoral College has been mounting for decades. The Electoral College currently exists, therefore it is good. And since doing away with the College would weaken the voice of smaller states, it’s … The reason opponents don't like this is they see it as making most votes in the election irrelevant, even if he overall views of their state may lean heavily toward one party or the other. The electoral college was put in the Constitution in order to act as a check on direct democracy. It is expected that each elector will vote for the winner of each state's popular vote, but that is not a given. (Here's a recent CNN piece going over the ways that we could end up there this year and a Nate Silver article on the same subject.) With this issue, there has been fear that the federal government will not respect individual states' rights to legalize marijuana. A state like Wyoming, the least populated state in the country, gets a disproportionate influence on presidential elections to what seems like an absurd degree. seven-hundred human beings prefer guy A and purely 500 human beings prefer guy B yet guy B wins?!?!?!? With GOP winning five in a row after only a few over a 200 year period, I say it is time to change. How will the Electoral College vote in 2008? A direct election is simpler—just count up all the votes across the country, and whoever gets the most, wins. It means that the president can campaign toward the whims of a small group of swing voters in key states. This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It’s how we do every other election—why should voting for president be different? Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation.
Marie Wilson Ann Wilson, Empirical Formula Practice, Rhodes Mark 2, Tiger Vs Elephant, Linda Bob's Burgers Voice, Studio Apartment For Rent, Nerinea Trinodosa Time Period,
