Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
American Democracy
The Electoral College as it currently functions is a way of getting around the "popular vote" -- as Underhill (2012) notes in "Changing Up the Electoral College?" However, Gregg (2011) puts an entirely different spin on the Electoral College by viewing it as "a compromise" between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist agendas that went into forming the Constitution (p. 34). Gregg asserts that the Electoral College allows special representatives to select after a republican process (direct voting) the executive. In other words, it combines popular vote with representative vote. Essentially, the popular vote is limited to states and does not count for the nation as a whole. The individual winner of a state's popular vote is assigned electoral votes -- and while one state may have many more people/voters than another -- these numbers are only represented by the electoral votes when it comes time to choosing the national winner of the executive office.
I am not in support of the current Electoral College because I think it denies Americans the right to a truly national popular vote. By limiting the popular vote process to the states, it ensures that more populated states will have less sway in the national election. But since it is a national election and not a state election, the popular vote should be counted nationwide, not just within state borders. The proposed changes by...
33), and I am not in favor of that. I think the status quo has to be changed to be more reflective of the sovereignty and will of the people on a national level, since the office is a national-level office -- but I believe the change should come via legislation -- i.e., an amendment to the Constitution.
The NPVP proposes that states should be able to circumvent the Constitution by pledging the electoral votes for their state to the winner of the national popular vote. While in theory, the winner of the national popular vote should be win the office in my opinion, I do not like the idea of circumventing the Constitution. If this is what states want, then representatives/legislators should amend the law. Law-abiding practices should be promoted -- not practices…
References
Gregg, G. (2011). Unpopular Vote. The American Conservative: 33-35.
Underhill, W. (2012). Changing Up the Electoral College? Trends and Transitions: 9.
The Electoral College could easily lead to the election of a President that does not have the popular support of the entire nation (Amar pp). Moreover, many believe that the clauses of the U.S. Constitution that provide for the electoral system should be removed before the country elects a candidate despite the fact that another candidate received more votes (Amar pp). Today, technology allows for an informed national electorate as
Electoral College When the constitution of United States was framed there were discussions on various methods of selecting the President and the method of a direct popular vote was rejected. The reasons for rejection were the poor state of communications and the large distances in between the states. This was felt to make the voters really be familiar with the candidates from their own states and this might lead to the
Electoral College The current function of the Electoral College is that each state has a set number of votes for the President, based on the population of that state. The candidate with the most votes in that state would receive all of that state's Electoral College votes. The system has come under fire from critics would point out the flaws in this system. For example, it does not differentiate between a
Electoral College: Should the U.S. Push for Reform or Elimination? When citizens of the United States vote in a presidential election, many believe that they are taking part in a direct election of the president (Sutin 2003). However, because of the existence of the electoral college, established in the U.S. Constitution, this is not really true. The electoral college is a set group of "electors" who are nominated by political activists and
Supporters of the current system claim it allows small states and small town America to have a say in the election. The candidates go to every corner of the battleground states and many people get the opportunity to meet and question them. Many feel that is a major benefit of the Electoral College. Another benefit many see is that it gives the winning candidate the majority of the vote.
This is just as important as having a president who is equally representative of the interests of each state. The Founding Fathers succeeded admirably in the area of state-based election of the president, but did they succeed in also ensuring we have a democratically elected president? Are public presidential elections really shams, leaving us with a president who is essentially appointed by political party favorites, or does he represent