After reading the Room for Debate article “Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?”, I started thinking about the subject matter of electing a president. The Electoral College is a system of deciding who becomes president by giving every state a specific amount of voters in congress. Candidates visit states to try to win their vote, getting all of the votes of the state. The first candidate to reach 270 votes wins the presidency.
I believe the Electoral College should be replaced by the popular vote, as when you “vote” for a president, you’re not directly voting for him. Even when the popular vote is higher than the other candidates, it all matters on the “winner take all” 270 vote system. This system is mostly dependent on swing states, as most states vote the same political party every 4 years. Even if you wanted to vote for a Republican when your state is Democratic, it is a waste of time, as safe states vote the same party the majority of the time. Winners of the Electoral College don’t always win the popular vote, and it’s happened multiple times, leaving people wondering what the purpose of voting is. I believe American citizens should definitely vote, but we need to abolish/rework the Electoral College.
You are right in terms of how the electoral college works, but the electors are chosen really by using the popular vote. The popular vote is used to determine electors and the electors choice. Electors are still allowed to vote for who they want which is why sometimes an elector from a party votes for another candidate then who you chose. These electors "represent" you in the electoral college, but there is no guarantee that they will vote for you. The electoral college is useful as it provides a sort of middle ground between the popular vote and the congressional selection for presidential candidate.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the idea of getting rid of the electoral college for the specific reason that the electoral college was implemented to prevent majority rule within the nation. An example of this being if a president was chosen by the majority, which would reside in specific states, then it would undermine the other smaller states such as Nebraska or Ohio. This in turn would cause those who live within these smaller states to not feel represented. Therefore that is why states such as California, New York, and Texas are granted so little electoral votes. This is all meant to ensure everyone within the nation is represented equally, and not just the majority. If the majority were to be in charge you'd be seeing specific policies that would undermine a specific states economy, while benefiting the states with the largest population. This type of complete control to the people could also quite possibly transform into complete mob rule seeing that the candidates must listen to the majority, and if he doesn't create policies that benefit them then they're going to choose politicians that benefit the majority leading to the masses controlling everything which doesn't stop them from undermining the rights of a smaller group. But this last segment is all "if" so until implemented we are yet to see.
ReplyDeleteThe electoral college has been under fire for a while. It’s an interesting system that was made in fear of direct democracy. While, it has its benefits, it can be amended to better suit the United States. Some believe that having the popular vote be the method for election would cause populous states to control elections, but this is not true. This is simply because each vote is counted as a vote; it doesn’t matter where the vote comes from. Elections would resemble classroom voting for what soda flavor the class wants to buy.
ReplyDeleteSince some would still oppose this, then we can look at a compromise: percentages. This system would maintain the electors of each state. At the end of a state’s voting session, the percentages of votes for each candidate would be evaluated. Then, the percentages of the state’s total electoral votes would go to each candidate. This is a little hard to explain so let me use a scenario. Bob and Mark are running for president. California has 55 electoral votes. Bob beats Mark, 53% to 47% respectively. Therefore, (rounding sounds bad but it is what it is) Bob gets 29 electoral votes and Mark gets 26. That is just one way I thought of altering the electoral college. It’s not perfect, but this is a great time to discuss ways to better our country.
Additionally, the US should implement the ranked-choice voting (RCV) system in every state. The State of California has already down so. Ballotpedia.org explains the system like this: “...[a system] in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.” This system is progressive and prevents vote splitting.
The electoral college should not be abolished but it definitely should be reworked as thousands of votes do not count in the end. If my state wants to vote for someone I am not voting for then what is the point of my individual vote. As a voter, if I vote for Kanye I'd want my vote to actually make a difference in actually helping manke Kanye president. The electoral college has some issues to resolve in making my vote count while at the same time letting smaller states still have a say in voting for president.
ReplyDeleteThe electoral college shouldn't be replaced by the popular vote but it definitely needs to be amended. The electoral college was put in place in order to have states with higher populations have as much as a say as state with a smaller population. A state with a larger population might not have the best interest in mind as a state with a smaller population and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the electoral college is that it makes it so that voters in a blue or a red state don't have much of a say because it is pretty much set in stone what the state is going to vote for. The swing states have the most power in the election. Not to mention that it is primarily impossible to have a say in a third-party because of our two-party system.
I think that what needs to be done is that the amount of electoral votes still stays the same for each state, but the popular vote within that it would determine how many electoral votes the state puts in. Let's say that California votes in an election 50% Democrat, 40% Republican, and 10% third party. The amount of electoral points for each party would account for the percentage of people voting in the state and not 'all for one' like we currently have. Using the California example, about 27.5 votes for Democrat, 22 votes for Republican, and 5 votes for third party. I'm hoping that made sense.