Electoral College Is Unfair

This system needs to be put to an end. The American people are well enough informed to elect their own president without the aide of an Electoral College. The electors in the Electoral College do not actually make decisions anyway. They are just figurative for they should vote along their state’s popular vote, even though most are not legally bound to do so. Even though the electors’ votes reflect that of their state’s popular vote, the views of the people are not always represented. If one candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, and the other candidate receives 49.9 percent, the candidate with only .2 percent more of the popular vote receives all of that states electoral votes. This system is also very unfair to the third party candidate. He/she has very little chance of receiving any electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the national

In the United States, the Electoral College determines the victor of a national election. Each state has its own number of electoral votes, which is determined by state population. This system is a “winner takes all” system. Which means the candidate with 50 percent or more of the votes in an individual state gets all of that states electoral votes. The 2016 presidential election will have 538 electoral votes, this means that the election will be decided who is the first candidate to 270 votes. Some people have seen this system as outdated and unjust. Many are looking at a way to change the system and others would like to do away with the system

Not all systems are perfect, nor is the Electoral College. As we seen in the 2016 presidential election, the popular vote may not necessarily get the majority in the Electoral College resulting in what is criticized not to be as democratic when the popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton in this case, was the loser of the election. The outcome of the election can be dictated by the electors and in some cases not reflect the will of the people. Also, the winner-take-all clause creates a possibility that the popular vote gets nothing even in a situation when is it very close to half the votes. All states except for

The popular vote and electoral vote are two different things. Popular vote, shows how many people in the state wants the candidate. For example, The results from the Election of 1824 shows that the popular vote for each candidate differs by a large amount. The smallest popular vote candidate was William Crawford with 11.2% and his electoral vote was 41 then take a look at candidate Henry Clay with a popular vote of 13% and his electoral vote was 37. (Doc 3)This shows that the Electoral vote trumps the popular vote and it really should be the opposite. The more people that vote the more say you should have to who is the

America has been acknowledged as being one of the world’s leading democracies, but to continue implementing the use of the Electoral College creates some distortion to that title. The out of date system does not accurately portray democracy. Theoretically, a democracy is government system that is ruled by the people. In reality, an individual’s vote may not matter depending on the state they reside in. Robert Dahl, a Democratic Theorist stated, “every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” Political equality is important to the distribution of power. Even if a person is wealthy and of power their vote should be counted the same as someone in poverty.

The electoral college works as a winner-takes-all system, when a president wins a simple majority in a state, they get all electoral votes from that state. Then, whichever candidate gets the most electoral votes wins the election. The electoral college should be abolished because it makes popular vote not matter,

Your vote should mainly matter! Yes, the electoral college should be abolished. The delegates did not believe the president should be chosen by a direct population vote (of the people). They didn’t trust voters would have enough information to make a good choice. The Electoral College is where the president and vice president are chosen indirectly. This system is where all states and the District of Columbia get one electoral vote for each of their US senators and representatives. Also, each state has a slate of electors for each presidential candidate. Another way this system works is by winner-take all method. The winner-take all method is where whichever candidate wins the most votes in the state, wins the state electoral votes. Lastly a candidate must receive a majority (one more than a half) of the electoral votes to be declared president. That is how everything goes in the electoral college. The electoral college should be abolished because 12 states and D.C. total have double the amount of electoral votes but less people than Illinois. Also, the winner of the 1876 presidential election isn’t what people wanted, it was based on the number of electoral votes. Another reason the electoral college should be abolished is that the states with the same representatives dont have the same number of voters. All these issues that continue to happen, need to be resolved by getting rid of this system.

Jury Selection of the 1930’s was very racially bias and prejudice towards the African American race by the white society. Also the men of white society minimized women's rights by not letting them participate in the jury. The jury selection process has changed vastly from the 1930’s until now. It is more complex and safe and open to all race and gender, people can’t just be on the jury there is a selection process for it. I believe that in 1933, Tom Robinson was unjustly charged because the process based on jury selection, jury selection experts, and the extreme difference in racial bias from then until now.

In the debate about whether or not we should abolish the electoral college, my concern, as well as so many others, is not on the small/big states or Democrat/Republican states, it is about what the people want. More importantly, it is about equality in every vote cast in a presidential election. With the current system in place, it is impossible for this to be achieved. The electoral college should be abolished because of the unfair distribution of electors per state and coverage of states in the presidential run, refusal to give the people what they want, and because it is no longer relevant or needed.

First of all, the Electoral College ignores what most citizens want and undervalues their votes. Because people in each state are voting for electors that are assigned to each party rather than the actual candidates, the decision for president is really up to 538 electors instead of the population of more than 300 million Americans (The Electoral College: Top 3 Pros and Cons). 48 states use a winner-take-all system, where the dominant candidate in each state gains control of all the electors. The only states that don’t use this system are Maine and Nebraska ( ). This system the election about winning states in order to gain electors, and not about each citizen's individual vote. It’s so focused on winning overall states that it completely neglects the popular vote. It is mathematically possible under the Electoral College system that a candidate can win only 21.8% of the popular vote and still win the presidency.. This is due to the fact that the 39 smaller states have too many electoral votes for their population, and because of the winner-take-all system in every state except Nebraska and Maine, all a candidate needs to do is win 50.01% of the popular votes in those states, and he/she can clinch the election (Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College). Events similar to this have happened in history where the candidate who received more popular votes didn’t win the election. For example, in 1876

The United States, well known for its democracy, holds elections every four years to elect its President. Every American citizen over the age of 18 has a right to cast a vote in the presidential election. The voting process, although it seems easy and straightforward, can be very complicated. In the 2000 election, Al Gore captured the majority of votes, but George Bush won. The reason for this strange outcome and why Al Gore lost was because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is voting system where different states are given a certain amount of votes in the election, and which ever candidate wins a state, is given that state’s votes. The Electoral College is out of date, and should be replaced by the Popular Vote system,

The Constitution of the United States of America created a system called the Electoral College where it outlines the rules in which we elect the President of the United States of America. As stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution created the Electoral College. Each state receives as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives. Therefore, each state, including the District of Columbia, will have at least three electors. This is the vision of the Constitution. Now the problem arises when all the Electoral votes from one state are given to the popular winner for that state. This causes a with people’s right to chose their leader as votes of the people that voted for the losing candidate are tossed in the trash. All this while giving the state the ultimate power to elect the president.

Democratic theorist, Robert Dahl once said, “…every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” This quote greatly summarizes what the Electoral College system means; every person in the United States is guaranteed one vote. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to elect who serves in the government, and we are given that opportunity through this system. This is what the Founding Fathers came up with in order to solve the problems they faced over 200 years ago. However, some have opposed this system is not fit for this democracy, and argue that other systems would work more fairly. On the contrary, I strongly believe that the Electoral College system should be kept because it is the fairest way to elect the President.

“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000. Because if a bullet cost $5,000, we wouldn’t have any innocent bystanders.” (Rock, 1999) Chris Rock got a big laugh when he expressed his comical stance on the issues with guns. With the heart-wrenching reality of the Virginia Tech massacre, the issue of whether or not guns should be allowed on college campus has returned to the forefront of debates, and this is no longer a

A domesticated dog that gets stolen and sold to the wild, a mongoose that gets separated from his family, and a fourteen-year-old boy that gets shot at by a group of strange men are all protagonists that face difficult challenges revealing their characteristics. Buck in The Call of the Wild by Jack London is a domesticated dog that gets stolen and sold to a sled dog team as he faces the challenge of surviving in the wilderness. Rikki in “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi” by Rudyard Kipling, is a daring mongoose who gets washed away from his family by a monsoon and is taken in by humans where he faces the challenge of surviving against Nag, the evil snake who is targeting him. Walt Masters in “The King of Mazy May” by Jack London is a fearless fourteen-year-old boy who faces the challenge of having to be brave as he saves an old man’s claim from black-bearded stampeders. Buck, Rikki-Tikki, and Walt encounter desperate circumstances where they learn about life.