Respond to the following: The electoral college should be abolished and replaced with one of the following:
- a national popular vote
- adopt the Maine-Nebraska system of apportioning electoral votes nationwide
- some other system of your choosing should be adopted
OR, you may argue that we should keep the electoral college.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The electoral college should definitely be abolished. It is in all honesty a very weird system in my opinion. The electoral college system does not always ensure that the most popular candidate wins, and it causes presidential candidates to focus on only a handful of states instead of the entire country. Voters living in heavily democratic or heavily republican states who belong to the opposite party virtually waste their vote because of the system we use today.
ReplyDeleteA national popular vote would be much more effective, in my opinion. Electing the president should be much simpler: the person with the most votes wins. This is the candidate who the country is most behind, and who has the most support. Three times in our country's history (1824, 1876, 1888) presidents have been elected because they won the electoral college vote but not the popular vote. These candidates should never have been president because the majority of the country did not support them. A national popular vote would allow the candidate who has the most votes overall to become president.
I agree with Katherine. The electoral college system is strange. It originated because at one point, the nation was so well connected when it took a longer time to communicate over long distances. Because of this disadvantage in communication, it would be hard in a close vote to determine the exact tally and quickly determine a winner. Now that we have a more connected nation with faster technology, this is no problem, and so the electoral system no longer serves its original purpose. Also, I believe the current electoral college system gives preferences between states, giving certain ones more power and influence.
ReplyDeleteA system electing the candidate with the most popular votes would be much more suitable for our nation, because this is how many of our other elections are conducted, and this would create uniformity within the state and federal government. It also simply makes the most sense to elect the candidate which earns the most votes, because that candidate is seen to run the government the way the majority of people would like the country to be run.
The electoral college should be replaced with a national popular vote. This is the most fair way to go about it. This also makes the system more simple and understandable. As Katherine mentioned, the electoral college system is unfair because if you are a republican living in a democratic area or the other way around, a politician that you like probably won't even campaign in your area. Also, your vote is most likely of no worth. With a popular vote system, however, your vote will absolutely count.
ReplyDeleteIn short, the electoral college system is not completely fair for the presidential candidate or the voter. There is no reason that a candidate should win an election in which they did not receive the popular vote. The electoral college votes do not always represent the true sentiment of the voting public.
The Electoral College system should be abolished and replaced with a popular vote system. Right now with the Electoral College system there is no way of ensuring that all the people in the country can be properly represented. The Electoral College is simple a winner take all type of voting which does not fit with our diverse American nation. With the popular vote system we are able to better represent the ideas of not only the majority but also the minorities in certain areas. It will also give us a more competitive race, because now every vote really does count, which will in turn bring about a greater number of voters to ensure that their candidate wins. The Electoral College is not split up evenly. It is much easier to win an Electoral College race than it is to win the popular vote. With a popular vote system the people will be directly responsible for the president, instead of a president not getting the popular vote but winning the Electoral College votes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Electoral College should be abolished, however i think we should adopt the Maine-Nebraska system of apportioning electoral votes nationwide. I think that if the country went straight to a popular vote it would cause many problems with campaigning. Although a nationwide popular vote would ensure proper representation the candidates would have a more difficult time getting their message out because their areas of focus would be changed. Less populated states would have less of an impact on the elections and would get less attention from candidates. However if the Maine-Nebraska system of appointing electoral votes depends on percentages the less populated states would still have an impact. In this system voters would have the ability to have impact on the number of electoral votes a candidate receives rather then throwing away their vote in a purely Electoral COllege vote.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Katherine, Katrina, and Ben. I think the electoral college system is confusing and probably not understood by most Americans. I personally do not understand the reason why we have electors if those electors are not able to vote freely. It just seems like a pointless, ritualistic practice. That is why I think the president should be elected by a national popular vote.
ReplyDeleteI believe that when U.S. citizens go to the voting booth to vote for the president, they go as Americans looking out for the welfare of the country. Thus, we should give each citizen an equal vote. As we have the system now, voters in Wyoming and the District of Columbia have higher per-capita electoral representation than other states. Similarly unfair is that swing states are given much more attention than other states. Really, a vote in a swing state is more valuable than a vote in a red or blue state. A popular vote would even out the imbalances and give every American equal representation.
I am in agreement with Katrina in saying that the Electoral College is outdated. The Electoral College system creates a need for strong attention in certain states. These states, known as battleground states, are very popular during election year in order for a candidate to get these electoral votes. This prevents other states, such as New York, New Jersey, and California to be completely ignored. These states are seen as Democrat states and would be wasteful for any republican candidate to campaign. Such states that have over 100 million people become useless to the election process.
ReplyDeleteWith this, I feel it would be most beneficial to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system of apportioning electoral votes nationwide. In my understanding, this would represent electoral votes proportionally instead of the current winner-take-all system. Elections years that Katherine had mention, 1824, 1876, and 1888, presidents have been elected that have not won the popular vote, which goes against America’s goal of democracy. This would also create room for a 3rd party candidate to win electoral seats and become a bigger player in the election. The effect of this system in Maine and Nebraska is muted due to the small number of electoral districts in each state, but such states as California, Texas, New York, and New Jersey, would be better represented if the Maine-Nebraska system of apportioning electoral votes nationwide was adopted.
I believe that the electoral college should be abolished and replaced with a popular vote system. To me, the electoral college is an unfair system that supports the idea that some states, ex. swing states, are more important than others. Since the country was founded on the concept of equality, I feel it a bit odd that some states are given priority to others on such a large scale issue. I agree with Nick on the concept of America continuing the system in a ritualistic manner. I understand that this system may have been helpful in the past, however some rituals need to be broken in order for better rituals to replace them. For me, the better ritual in this instance is a popular vote system. This system would give everyone an equal say in electing politicians in order to ensure American ideals. I also believe that people would feel as though their voice actually matters and as a result it is quite possible that voter turnout might rise.
ReplyDeleteThe electoral college system that exists today should be abolished. It is unfair and allows one candidate to gain too many votes from one state if they get only 51% of the state's popular votes. California and Texas have almost half of all electoral votes combined, yet their voting habits are strongly Democrat, or strongly Republican. Because of this, candidates do not do much, if any campaigning in these states because they know they will most likely win the state no matter what. This makes the votes of people within the state who do not vote with the regulars, unimportant. Because of this, I think that the current system should be replaced with a system similar to that of Maine and Nebraska. Votes will be split nationwide, and within each district of all of the states. This will allow for each district to vote their own way instead of their vote being skipped over if they do not vote with the majority of their state. The new system would allow many more people an actual voice, considering three previous Presidents have lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college, and therefore, the Presidency. If people knew their vote would matter more because the votes will be distributed by district, more eligible citizens may go out and vote. Overall, changing the current electoral college system is in the best interest of the voting system of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most in saying that the Electoral College needs to be abolished. As Katherine refernced, 3 times in our country's history a president has won the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College. If a majority of the public votes for a certain candidate, it makes little sense to give the presidency to 2nd place just because they won the majority in other states. As Molly stated, if a popular vote system is enacted, it gives more people incentive to go out and vote because their vote has an effect on the election. Going with the popular vote would force candidates to campaign nationwide opposed to just in few swing states, connecting the candidates to the people more and giving more people an opportunity to see the candidates they are voting for.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the electoral college should not be abolished. If popular vote is enacted, the people in large states will have more of a say than people in smaller states. States like Massachusetts, who have a majority of Democratic voters, will make little difference against much larger Republican states, like Texas. The electoral college gives every state a fair say taking population into consideration. In response to Katherine saying full popular vote is the only right way, I say that there are so many votes in a National election, that there is a very large possibility for a miscount (such as in 2000). Every state has an opportunity to be represented in the electoral college, and I think it should stay.
ReplyDelete