Of course, changing the Constitution to a popular vote system would be tricky, since we'd have to pass an amendment unlikely in the current political atmosphere. In 2001, when Barack Obama was an Illinois senator and law professor, he complained about the Constitution as an impediment to the goal of radical income redistribution. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority. Rural areas that are less populated would be simply ignored, because they, as a whole, would have less impact on the election. Hillary Clinton won by 3 million votes.
Join and follow updates on. If you were to break down the number of people per electoral vote, there are way more people per elector, if you will, in Texas than in Wyoming. Nor would a direct election have changed those outcomes without a run-off requiring over 50% of the popular vote an idea which not even proponents of a direct election seem to advocate. The Electoral College saves us from having to deal with such challenges. California, which has the most electoral votes currently at 55 , is 43. We have 51 separate but consecutive presidential elections Washington, D. Conversely, a shift of only about 500 votes would have given Al Gore the electoral win in Florida and hence the presidency in 2000 -- he did win the popular vote nationwide.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaignattention ad spending and visits was showered on voters in justten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, theswing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U. The Electoral College may have made sense in 1789 when it was created as part of the U. To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States. But Iowa, a swing state, has voted Republican twice and Democratic twice in the past four presidential elections.
On election day, voters choosing a presidential candidate are actually casting a vote for an elector. The electoral College was formed for a couple of reasons- one of the reasons was that- in the 1800's many people were not very highly educated. The Electoral College is simply a process, not a place or a person. In the United States, for example, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. Other Sources American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
It is prescribed by the Constitution, and it can be eliminated only with a Constitutional Amendment. When there is a tie, the election is decided by the House of Representatives, … with each state delegation having one vote. At the same time, other states will move away from their party affiliation to a more centrist position and become swing states. Identify one linkage institution other than elections and explain two ways it connects citizens to government. If a Presidential candidate knows that a state traditionally votes in one direction, why are they going to waste their time? A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority.
Each state's number of electoral votes is a combination of senate and house representation. The first was in 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied. John Adams was elected vice-president. And if you divide by electoral votes. In the United States, we have what is known as a single-member district, where each district gets one legislative seat. This begs the question — is this a fair process? Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes ; in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U. Also several procedures, including amending the Constitution and overriding presidential vetoes require supermajorities.
Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast - just as votes from every county are equal and important when a vote is cast in a Governor's race. Conclusion The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years and in over 50 presidential elections by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively. For more information go to: This entry was posted in on by. Many areas will be abandoned and everyone will move away from the terrible, scary place. That it is actually an oligarchy? Sorry if I am misinformed here, but I do not feel that the electoral college makes anything better.
In the United States, there are a handful of states that largely favor one party. Jill Stein, of the Green Party, and Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party, for instance, were two additional candidates that were hoping to secure enough votes to lock in the presidency. Should the American Electoral College be abolished? Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safe … ly ahead or hopelessly behind. It also would make it harder for poor candidates to run. Even if a split between the Electoral College and popular majorities leaves many feeling an election outcome is not fully legitimate, threats to the perceived legitimacy of election outcomes, and claims of illegitimacy might, in close elections, be far greater if the Electoral College did not exist. According to writer Chuck Raasch, that means a vote in Wyoming has potentially four times the impact in the Electoral College 1.