Electoral College
Gary Lowell
Issue date: 10/30/08 Section: Opinion
I am against the Electoral College, and there are many reasons why. The way the Presidential election is set up, a candidate for President has to get 270 electoral votes to win the election. Electoral votes are given out based on what candidate receives the plurality of votes in a given state. Since each state has a certain amount of delegates based on its population, the Electoral College does not take the popular vote into consideration.
First, it gives a person's vote in one state more power than a person's vote in another state. For example, Rhode Island has 4 Electoral votes and California has 55 Electoral votes. When a person votes in Rhode Island, there is only a possible 4 Electoral College votes that can be gained by a candidate as a result of that vote, whereas there are 55 Electoral College votes which can be gained by a candidate from your vote in California. With this difference in Electoral votes, a candidate will seek to win California more than he/she will seek to win Rhode Island. Candidates will thus seek a person's vote in California more than they will seek a vote in Rhode Island. This leads to a person's vote in California having more importance than a person's vote in Rhode Island.
The Electoral College also leads to the candidates spending most of their time campaigning in states that have a high number of electoral votes. Candidates do this because winning the more populous states will get them more electoral votes than will winning the less populous states. This means that the voters in the smaller states are left mostly to themselves and ignored by the candidates.
The Electoral College is also unfair to third party and independent candidates. With the "winner take all" setup of the electoral votes, third party candidates are not given an adequate chance to win the election. Instead, all of the states go to one of the major two parties: at this time the Democratic and Republican parties. Candidates from other parties, such as the Green Party and Libertarian Party, and independent candidates are mostly excluded from the process by the Democratic and Republican parties. The way voting is set up now, third party and independent candidates have to fight just to get their names on the ballot.
What I think would work better than the Electoral College is having a national popular vote. If that were to happen, that would mean that every single person's vote would be just as equal as every other person's vote. This would make it so one state does not have more say in the election than another. I think it could also help give third parties more recognition and say in politics. This would by no means solve all of the problems that are in the Electoral College, but I think it would solve more than it would create.
First, it gives a person's vote in one state more power than a person's vote in another state. For example, Rhode Island has 4 Electoral votes and California has 55 Electoral votes. When a person votes in Rhode Island, there is only a possible 4 Electoral College votes that can be gained by a candidate as a result of that vote, whereas there are 55 Electoral College votes which can be gained by a candidate from your vote in California. With this difference in Electoral votes, a candidate will seek to win California more than he/she will seek to win Rhode Island. Candidates will thus seek a person's vote in California more than they will seek a vote in Rhode Island. This leads to a person's vote in California having more importance than a person's vote in Rhode Island.
The Electoral College also leads to the candidates spending most of their time campaigning in states that have a high number of electoral votes. Candidates do this because winning the more populous states will get them more electoral votes than will winning the less populous states. This means that the voters in the smaller states are left mostly to themselves and ignored by the candidates.
The Electoral College is also unfair to third party and independent candidates. With the "winner take all" setup of the electoral votes, third party candidates are not given an adequate chance to win the election. Instead, all of the states go to one of the major two parties: at this time the Democratic and Republican parties. Candidates from other parties, such as the Green Party and Libertarian Party, and independent candidates are mostly excluded from the process by the Democratic and Republican parties. The way voting is set up now, third party and independent candidates have to fight just to get their names on the ballot.
What I think would work better than the Electoral College is having a national popular vote. If that were to happen, that would mean that every single person's vote would be just as equal as every other person's vote. This would make it so one state does not have more say in the election than another. I think it could also help give third parties more recognition and say in politics. This would by no means solve all of the problems that are in the Electoral College, but I think it would solve more than it would create.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 7
Tom
posted 10/31/08 @ 3:42 PM EST
Sorry but your article doesn't make very much sense.
You argue that the electoral college doesn't take into account population but you admit in the same sentence that the number of delegates awarded by a state is based on the population of that state. (Continued…)
Gary
posted 11/02/08 @ 12:33 AM EST
I think what you are reffering to with the first paragraph is when I say "Since each state has a certain amount of delegates based on its population, the Electoral College does not take the popular vote into consideration. (Continued…)
Natural Cures
posted 11/02/08 @ 4:13 AM EST
People are resistant to changing the constitution. When creating the constitution, they had to appease all the states so they would ratify it and become a part of our country. (Continued…)
susan
posted 11/02/08 @ 7:13 PM EST
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. (Continued…)
keshacoggins
posted 12/23/08 @ 5:11 AM EST
According to CBS, the Electoral college voters cast their ballots in state capitals on Monday, fulfilling their ceremonial but very important role as laid out by the Constitution. (Continued…)
jonathan
posted 3/07/09 @ 6:34 PM EST
Losing confidence that you can recover from your chronic addiction? Need hope that life can change? Phone the Addiction Link toll-free number (1.800.559. (Continued…)
Post a Comment