Due to the recent election where Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election, there has been concern that our electoral college and voting process is not doing its job.
Pro #1: History
The Founding Fathers created the system of the electoral college because they did not trust the everyday man to be educated enough to vote for the best candidate. The hope was that the members of the college would be smart enough to vote for a qualified person and not just what the majority wanted. Their original intent was to protect the minorities from being overrun by the majority.
Con #1: History needs to be changed
The Founding Fathers did not envision America to be as educated as it is today. The internet provides so many ways for people to stay informed about the issues and the candidates that virtually anyone can inform themselves on the issues of today. Before, women and slaves couldn't vote either so there is no reason why this law can't be changed as well. Additionally, the electoral college was supposed to be free from bias but now most of them are aligned with a party and will vote for that party regardless of how good they think the candidate is.
Pro #2: Gives more power to smaller states
If the election was by popular vote, candidates would spend more time in densely populated areas instead of in rural settings. The people living in rural areas would have virtually no say in the election at all. Campaign platforms now have to encompass many more people's needs and wants than if it were by popular vote.
Con #2: Too much power in swing states
Because candidates have to focus their efforts on swing states, they only listen to those voices. California and Indiana are ignored because they know how those states are going to vote.
Pro #3: Garuntees finality in the election
Certain presidents, like Nixon and Clinton have won with less than 50% of the popular vote, but they won most of the electoral votes. If they switched to popular vote, there would be cases where the winner would not have the majority of votes.
Con #3: Electoral college does not reflect the wants of the people
Because certain candidates have lost the electoral but won the popular, the election outcomes did not accurately represent the will of the people. Even President Trump thinks it makes more sense for presidents to win by popular vote. Additionally, Republicans in California and Democrats in Indiana have their voice drowned out by the majority of the state and basically have zero influence over the election.
In my opinion, we should consider something like the French have. In the first round of their elections, they have people vote for whichever candidate they like. 3rd party candidates can have more success this way. In America, people "waste" their votes on 3rd party candidates because there is no chance of them being elected. After the first round of elections, the members with the 2 highest percentages advance to the final round (unless one person gets more than 50% in the first round). In the second round, people who voted for a candidate that lost still are able to have a say in the final results. What are your thoughts on the electoral college? Should we keep it or leave it?
http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005330
While I agree with some of your points, I cannot get behind the idea that we don't need it because we are more educated than during the time of the Founding Fathers. Sure, we may have the internet to do research and become more knowledgeable, but how many people are really going to do that. Instead, they only read things that agree with their points and completely ignore anything about the other side, unless it is saying something bad about the opposing candidate. There is more propaganda than actual news during elections, so trusting the American public to actually take time to read things against their beliefs is a horrible idea.
ReplyDeleteCould this not be said of people that vote in the electoral college? Who is guaranteeing that they are staying informed and unbiased to both sides?
DeleteI think the electoral college makes some votes worth more than others by not distributing the electoral college votes to the states in proportion to their population. Some may say that this is, in fact, the whole point of the electoral college: to protect small states from the big states. Giving less populated states more electoral votes pretends fewer people live where they do, and more people live where they don't. An American who lives in a state such as California, Texas, or Florida has their vote count for less than someone's vote in Nebraska, Wyoming, or Vermont. Giving the small states more voting power might, in theory, make presidential candidates focus more of their attention on them in an election, but what ends up happening is the candidates only campaign in swing states such as Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. In fact, other than for private fund-raising events, Hillary Clinton did not host a single public event in which she met with Californians; this is because she knew she already had more than 50% of the Californians votes and would receive 100% of California's electoral college votes. The electoral college also drastically misrepresents the people's votes. One example is Richard Nixon's 1972 victory in which he won 96% of the electoral college despite only getting 60% of the nation's votes; sixty percent is on its own a very wide margin of victory but is nowhere near the 96% the electoral college maintains.
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 for more info.