Essay Electoral College Reform

Another problem surrounding the Electoral College system is that it allows one-party states, states that almost always go to one party. In this context, a Democrat who casts a vote in a mostly Republican state feels that his vote is wasted because of no way that state will be won by a Democrat. Besides, the system is based on two-party elections, the Democrat and the Republican leaving Americans with two candidates to choose (Belenky, 364). The voters end up picking the candidate with fewer issues rather than the one they support. In my opinion, people feel that Electoral College has single-handedly defeated

One of the reason why the Electoral College should not be destroyed, is that it helps the candidates who may struggle with the popular vote. In 1980, for Presidential Election, candidate Ronald Reagan barely won the popular vote (50.7%). With the help of the Electoral Vote, Reagan took 91% of it, which then made him the winner (Doc B). Also in 1992, Candidate Bill Clinton, did not even have half the country on his side (43%). With the help of the Electoral Vote, Clinton

The voting process in America appears straightforward, but it is a very complex, complicated system. The Electoral College is America’s current voting system. The Electoral College still serves its intended purpose, but with increasing political activity among Americans it has caused a need to reform this process. Research suggests that the Electoral College system should be amended because it poorly illustrates democracy, is outdated and the majority of Americans are in favor of abolishing the system.

The Electoral College system has been in place for over 200 years and Americans are still not sure how it works or if it is the best system. Many Americans feel they go to the polls every year and vote for the president, and in the long run they are in control of the fate of our executive branch. With the 1992 election it was clear that many people had little understanding for how a president is chosen; the 1992 election came close to having no majority of electors due to Ross Perot and his third party. However, after this last debacle over the presidency, many people are crying "foul" even though they still understand little or nothing about the benefits of the Electoral College. We

In order to fully understand the underlying problems of the Electoral College we have to look back at the time that the idea of the Electoral College itself was proposed and see how the culture of the time and the ideologies of the people involved helped shaped the final outcome. Life today is much different than it was two hundred odd something years ago, and it’s fair to say that the political ideals and social norms around our society have changed drastically.

The Founding Fathers, with much debate, established the Electoral College to determine the process for selecting a president and vice president for the upcoming four-year term. While constructing the United States Constitution in response to a compromise between Congressional and popular votes, decisions were made to determine the best method to avoid majority control of the Executive Branch (Patterson, 2013). Article II Section 1 of our Constitution details the composition and operation of the Electoral College while not detailing limitations on votes. Each state is entitled to representation in the Electoral College equal in

But this year, that is not the case. The media frequently refer to this year’s presidential election as one of the most competitive in recent history, perhaps since 1960 when Kennedy won with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646. In the final sprint of the marathon 2000 presidential campaign, Democratic nominee Al Gore and Republican nominee George W. Bush are neck and neck. Particularly in a contest close as this one, the Electoral College warps national politics and could lead to a major constitutional crisis. So, with a race this tight, it is entirely conceivable that one candidate may win the popular vote and still lose the election. This would mark the first time since 1888 that the president-elect lost the popular vote. Since it has happened three times before in American history, in 1824, 1876 and 1888, it could certainly happen again. In 1824, John Quincy Adams received fewer electoral votes and fewer popular votes than his opponent Andrew Jackson but won the election when the House of Representatives favored him by six state votes. Then again, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel J. Tilden with just one electoral vote in spite of having lost the popular vote. It was a contentious victory because the electoral votes of four states were disputed until eventually

The Electoral College always has its huge impact on the elections and more importantly on the very close elections. Both Republican and Democratic candidates feel at times that if their parties win the popular vote, they win the election, but that is when the electoral votes play their part. The electoral votes are combined by states and the electors in each state abide by the people's voice, but also have a chance

The Electoral College was established with the best of intentions of representing the American people; however, over time, this antiquated system has failed the American people. The people of the United States deserve better as the Electoral College is no longer a representation of the nation’s voices and concerns. Instead, the political machine has corrupted this deep-rooted system with each modification. The way the people of the United States elect the President and Vice President, requires an update for this timeworn democratic process.

The 2000 presidential election was a major eye opener for many people. As it appeared to also be the dismay of many, the candidate who won the most popular votes nationwide actually lost the contest. In the election's risen moment, popular attention centered around the Electoral College and its role in the presidential election. Under the U.S. Constitution, the people did not necessarily direct vote for the President in a nationwide election; rather, the people in each state would vote for electors from that state, who in turn would cast the constitutionally decisive votes for President and Vice President. Moreover, not only is the people's influence indirect, the Electoral College's voting pattern does not necessarily track the national popular

Imagine two candidates running for the presidency of a country. They are both outstanding candidates, and it is a close race. Going into the days of the voting, no one knows who is going win the election, and become the president. When the votes are tallied it shows that one candidate received more overall votes from the people of the country than the other. He, obviously being the favorite of the people, loses the election. Many of the people of the country are confused why he lost the election even though he won the popular vote. The winning candidate won because the country he won the presidency of, uses an outdated and flawed voting system. This candidate assumes the presidency knowing that he does not have the support of more than half of the nation that he is now

Over 2 centuries ago the united states constitution was created, inside the constitution a system called the electoral college was defined. Throughout the years of the electoral college's existence many have disputed the system and said it flawed. 700 amendments to neither abolish or change the electoral college have been made, a better alternative has not yet been found. Further proving the Electoral college is the best structure to electing the U.S president.

Donald Trump, several months after his presidential victory, appropriately summed up the presidential elections in the U.S. by saying, “I ran for the electoral college. I didn’t run for the popular vote” (Terkel). In the time since he was elected president by winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote, the debate surrounding the effectiveness of the electoral structure has arisen once again. This system, created in 1787, has a long but controversial history among the American people, and it is also often one of the most misunderstood aspects of our government. While some people believe the electoral college should be abolished or reformed, a further dive into its workings reveals that the system is working just fine. In the vast majority of elections, it has done its job appropriately, so nothing needs to be altered.

“While imperfect, the electoral college has generally served the republic well. It forces candidates to campaign in a variety of closely contested races, where political debate is typically robust,” William M. Daley former chief of staff at the white house. What Daley is talking about is the system by which we elect the President of the United States and other officials. The officials serve in the three branches of government judicial, legislative, and the executive. The executive branch is the one that will be focused on in this paper. The President is elected normally every four years by voting of the people and a group of electors who are not in Congress. Some people say that the electoral college is an outdated system and should be abolished. While this may be true the system does work and is still a viable system in this day and age. The U.S. electoral college does not need to be reformed

There have been many attempts to reform or even scrap the Electoral College election sense it's birth. The most recent one being in 1997 when congress debated a constitutional amendment to replace the electoral system with a direct popular vote system. However the Electoral College system to this day remains virtually un-changed from its original form. The only exception is the twelfth amendment, which requires each elector to cast two votes, one for president and one for vice president.