At the Constitutional Convention the Framers of the U.S. Constitution made decisions that affect our representation in the Congress and in the election of the Chief Executive, the President.
A system called the Electoral College determines who will win the presidential election. Each state and the District of Columbia are given a share of the electoral vote based on population.
Electors are chosen by the states to actually cast the official votes for president. Learn more about how this system works by completing the internet research questions titled "Extra" that I handed out in class.
Because of how the system is set up, it is possible for one candidate to win the popular vote and a different candidate to win the electoral vote to become president. Why does the Electoral system work this way?
Information on the election can easily be found on the internet. CNN's website might be particularly useful: www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000
Consider the presidential election of 2000. In your blog post explain whether that election followed the process for electing a president that was established by the Framers of the Constitution.
The main focus of your Blog post is to answer the following question. Take a position on the issue and provide evidence to support your position.
Do you believe the electoral college is a valid way to elect the president today?
Your blog comment on the issue is due Wednesday. Next week you can use a rubric to self-assess your writing, then you will have an opportunity to revise your writing as needed. Writing Goal: Use specific details from research to develop a clear position and informed voice in your persuasive writing.
14 years ago
I believe the Electoral College should stay and the reason being is that it's a fair, honest and staight forward way to elect a president. That way no one group of people have more power or say so than another in how we should decide who should run our country.A candidate running for president has to gain 270 electoral votes out of the 538 that exist throughout the U.S. and if no candidate receives a majority than another they 67% or six votes or its considered a run off election.Some pros of the Electoral College is it reconizes a role for the states in the selection of the president. Another pro is it encourages more person to person campaigning by candidates in big and small cities and battleground states. That's why I believe the Electoral College should stay just as it is for the good of the people and so that whatever presidents we elect in the future will be chosen (selected)in a fair and honest manner.
ReplyDeleteYes the process was followed in the 2000 election because electors were chosen and they voted in the Electoral College. According to Article II Section 1"Congress may determine the Time of Chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." Florida had to have their electors chosen by December 12th. The state of Florida set up their own system in advance of Dec 12th to have the election happen and leave enough time for recounts. There were so many court cases and ballots that were contested that they got close to the national deadline and it had to be resolved which it was. The Florida Supreme ruled on December 8th that all of the undervotes in the state had to be recounted but the U.S. Supreme Court stopped all recounts on Dec.9th. Bush's electors were chosen and voted for President.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the electoral college, I believe it is not a good way to elect a President in today's world. I believe this because the system was created 235 years ago when our country was just beginning. The Founders did not trust everyone to vote which doesn't apply today. People are more educated about the government and what is going on when in the beginning most people weren't even educated at all. Yes, we have grown as a country in the past 235 years. Woman and minority were eventually allowed to vote. The electoral college has a possibility of electing a minority president which has happened in the past elections. So even if one president got the popular vote from the people, he still had a chance of losing. Other CONS of the electoral college system are that electors elected from political parties do "pledge" into their parties but don't have to keep their word with their vote and have to trust word of the elector and hope he doesn't change his mind, also it's a failure to accurately reflect the national popular will. I believe that the electoral college is outdated and the voting should just be put into popular vote.
The Electoral College system is a confusing system but it's one that would be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to change. The electoral vote total does determine the winning candidate. It works this way because not everybody in the thirteen colonies trusted the government in the year 1787. Having to elect a president and vice president by just the citizens votes would be too baleful, the Framers thought. In the year 2000, George W. Bush got 271 electoral college votes with 47.9% of the popular vote while Al Gore got 266 electoral college votes with 48.4% of the popular votes, George Bush was elected president because he got more electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteYes, i do believe the electoral college system is a valid way to elect president because just the citizens vote might not be the best decision for their country. This system makes the candidates obligated to "chip in" a little something for each state. It lets each state apprised that a certain candidate is not only focusing on the big states like California. The candidate is also thinking about the smaller populated states like Wyoming. Also, this system keeps the election organized and less chaotic. If we didn't have the electoral college system, the candidates would be able to focus on getting votes in larger states and might ignore less populated states. Direct popular votes would cause tyranny to the majority. The democrats out number the amount of republicans in the United States. So almost every president would be a democrat which really isn't fair to everybody
Yes, I do believe that the electoral college is a valid way to elect the president. The electoral college keeps everything equal, and everything nice and organized. Every state has an equal part in the election. The electoral college has very little flaws, and even if the candidates don't get 270 votes, there is a backup plan to ensure the president is chosen correctly.
ReplyDeleteThe electoral college is also very good because it keeps our country as a whole, not just the states. This forces the candidates to campaign across the country and focus on many states, not just the large ones with the most people. No state is left out and left behind in the dust and forgotten about. Almost everyone is educated now, so every person will make a good, well thought-out educated vote on the candidate they would like to be elected. The electoral college also contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system. This is why I think the electoral college is a valid way to elect the president in current times, as well as in the past.
Recently, in 2000 with the election of George Bush and Albert Gore Jr., George Bush won the election with less popular votes. Even though Albert Gore Jr. got more votes in popularity, George Bush won the election because he had more electoral votes. Albert Gore Jr. had 48.38% of the popular votes, and George Bush only had 47.87% of the votes. Albert Gore Jr. had almost a million more votes than George Bush. It was incredibly close. However, when it came to the electoral votes, George Bush had 271 votes and Albert Gore Jr. had 266 votes. Following the rules of the electoral college, George Bush was elected for president.
The electoral college makes sure that the best candidate is chosen to lead America. It balances out the states and makes the candidates campaign across America, and not just the large states.
I think that the Electoral College should stay just because it is a good back-up plan if it's ever needed. Like in the election of 2000, Bush wasn't elected by the people, but by the electors- just as the Founding Fathers had planned. Bush got 271 of the Electoral College votes while Al Gore got 266 Electoral College votes. Just in case the candidates tie when the people are the ones voting, the Electoral College will be there for the decision. Also, with the equal representation for each state, the candidates have to focus on smaller, less populous states as well as the bigger ones. I think that the Electoral College would be a good thing to keep, because of the rare occasions that we would really need it.
ReplyDeleteWhen the founding fathers were deciding on how we should elect our President they were concerned the people would not have the resources to get to know or understand the views of the candidate and how it would affect their future. Therefore, they wanted to create a system where more politically active people could protect the people from themselves and make sure the person who becomes President is fit for the job. And so even if the people vote for a certain candidate, the electors could disagree and elect the loser of the popular vote for president.
ReplyDeleteIn the 2,000 elections George Bush was elected based on electoral votes, when he actually lost the popular vote. This shows how the process is flawed and why it should be changed. The election followed the process the Framers of the Constitution established but it did not please the actual people. I understand why the framers created this college back in the 1800’s, since the people back then were less educated and didn’t have to resources to learn and comprehend the candidate’s views. Also, there were no cars or television, so if people lived in rural areas, they most likely would never even meet or see the candidate they would end up voting for! But in today’s society things have changed drastically.
Now, the majority of people in the U.S. at least have a college degree and the numbers are rising. Along with accelerating education people are engrossed in a technology filled lifestyle. When you’re walking along the street you’ll most likely see numerous people texting, surfing the Internet, or chatting on the phone. With this constant access to information and the media, the people of the nation have more then enough opportunities to make a mart decision on who they would like to serve as the leader of their country.
No, I do not believe that the Electoral College is a valid way to elect the president today. I think this because maybe back when the founders created this system it worked because people back then didn't understand the whole political system and it was a good way for the candidates to not get cheated from just having popularity
ReplyDeleteThe electoral college does keep everything equal which is a pro, but now in present time it's 2011 and we have tons of new technology which keeps us updated on all of the news about what’s happening all over the world. This technology makes us capable of having the resources to understand the political system. Most people today also have college degrees, which even without technology we would still understand what goes on.
The Electoral College system seems a little old fashioned for this decade. I think people can now fully make a good decision on who they think should be president. People now can make their own opinions on what they believe is right. Considering the election in 2000 with Al Gore and George W Bush, Al Gore won the popular vote but George W Bush won the electoral vote and became president. The citizens obviously preferred Gore to Bush but Bush won because of the Electoral College system.
I do believe that we should change our views on the Electoral College, it may have its pros but its cons way pretty heavy too. A pro is that everything ends up equally worked out, but a con is also that it’s too ancient for the year of 2011. We need something new that would fit a booming country and a newer society. The Electoral College might have been good back in the 1800’s but now it’s the present and the Electoral College is the past and we need to move on from that.
Again as I go back the election in 2000 you can see how the process established by the Framers of the Constitution worked. Al Gore was the leader in the popular vote but when it came down to the ending vote George Washington came out victorious. Because of the Electoral College system he became president, because of that the system picked who they thought should be the president, which to me isn’t right, and that’s where I stand with this topic.
Imagine you live in Rhode Island, the smallest state in America. You have no say what goes on in national government all because of the abolishment of the Electoral College. No candidates ever come and campaign near you, they only spend their time campaigning in bigger states. I’m here to tell you that we can prevent this from happening, the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they established the constitution.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Electoral College system is a valid way to elect presidents and I believe this for many reasons. This system has performed its designated function for 200 years and has served for over 50 presidential elections, if it has served us so well so far why can't it keep serving us well? The United States of America is made up of 50 individual states, and we should be treated as that. The Electoral College takes every state into account, after each state votes and the vote goes one way, that vote is cast by the number of representatives per that state. Also,this system keeps the larger states in check, it evens out the power so one area won't become super dominant.
The system works this way so the popular vote wins, if most of the states as a whole want someone as president then they'll get him.
There are a total of 538 total electors so if a candidate gets 270 (the majority) or more electoral votes then they are elected. Although it is possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote and still be elected president by the Electoral College. In 2000, this happened to George W. Bush, he didn't win the most votes but he won the election because of the Electoral College. This election went just as the founding fathers had planned, Bush got 271 electoral votes while Gore only got 266. I believe although it might sound unfair to some but, honestly it is fair because this way it forces candidates to campaign all around the country not just to the big states. This is why I think the Electoral College system has worked for so long and will continue to work.
No, I do not one hundred percent agree with the Electoral College system. There are both pros and cons, but the cons over rule the pros in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteOn Election Day of 2000, 50,996,039 people cast votes for Al Gore, 539,898 more votes than George W. Bush had. However, more Bush supporters won seats in the Electoral College, and they elected him 271-266. Is this the best way to elect our president? I say no, it makes the people unhappy that their voice was not heard. I mean sure you can't please every single person, but the majority didn't even count in this vote and two other elections in the past have this same story. The Electoral College method of voting doesn’t even cast your vote straight to the candidate you vote for! So why did the Founding Fathers create this in the first place?
Back in the 1800's the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College system, where there are two houses of Congress. In the lower house (the House of Representatives), each state gets a number of representatives proportional to their population, but even the smallest state gets at least one. In the upper house (the Senate), each state, no matter how big or small, gets exactly two senators. The other part of it is that each state gets one electoral vote for each congressman and senator, so even the smallest state gets three votes. When you vote, you aren't voting for a candidate, but for a delegate who will vote for that candidate. This way, small states have more of a say.
But in the 1800’s it was a good idea, it made sense. They didn't have all the education and media that we have today. Now, we have television, the Internet, newspapers, and cell phones and many more gadgets that benefit our society in many ways. Anyways, with all these ways of communication we are able to see the candidates and learn about them too. In the 1800's you couldn't just hop in your car and go to the big cities to see them speak. Now a day, you can just look on the computer or your phone to view the video of the speech or talk on the phone with someone who knows lots about the candidate. You can look at articles in the newspapers, you can look on the TV, or on the Internet for recent news. So it’s a dramatic difference just in a certain amount of time.
I believe the Electoral College is creating more problems instead of solving them. Let’s say the Electoral College worked back then when our Founding Fathers created the system, but now it's getting kind of getting old fashioned for this decade and it needs change for the goodness of our country and the happiness of our people.
I am right in saying that our electoral college is another way to determine our states president and cabinate. Out of the many ideas our founding fathers suggested, this one was choosen. It has worked quite well and until the 2000 election, many hadn't questioned this system. Because George Bush won the electoral Vote, and Al Gore won over the majority, many were debating who should win. Because the larger states determine who our president will be by using the majory vote, the elctoral college was a way for smaller states to get more of a say in the vote. By using this system, our country has accomplished alot. This system has proven that the electoral vote is more powerful and works exceedingly well considering that George Bush won the 2000 election. This system has worked for many years and I belive that we should use it in the years to come.
ReplyDeleteNo. I don't totally come to a conclusion that the electoral collage system is a valid way to elect the president. I do agree that sections of the whole system has a positive effect on the voting, but there are many other points I don't necessarily agree with. I believe that the bad things over power the good things, but only just by a little. That is not what we want. I think if we make a few minor changes that are based on the problems that we are facing today, the electoral collage system would work wonderfully.
ReplyDeleteEven though the amount of electors per state is based on their own states population, I don't feel like this is a good choice. This part of the system still gives the larger states more power, we don’t want that. People say that this system is making the vote “fair” and that “everyone’s voice is being heard”, but that’s not the case to me. I think that this system is letting the small states get pretty much left out of the vote, their voices aren't nearly as heard and large states. For this reason, I feel bad for the smaller states and think that we need to change this in some sort of way.
I don't just feel bad for the smaller states, but also the large ones. There are so many voices to be heard in a large state. Lets say you lived in one of the bigger states. How would it feel to have your vote not really impact the final decision on who is chosen? Who gets elected is important business to me, so I know I that wouldn't make me the happiest person. Also, in the smaller states, they are able to meet and talk to their candidates without a struggle. There ability to meet the candidates allows the people to talk about how strongly they believe in their decision. But in the larger states it would become difficult to meet your candidates. There would be too many other people trying to talk to them, that your chance to meet them would become scarce.
In 2000, on election day, 50,996,039 people voted for Al Gore. He received 539,898 more votes than George W. Bush, so the vote was passed over to the Electoral Collage. There were more Bush supporters in the Electoral College, so George ended up winning by 5 votes. The vote was so close in both situations. If there was a certain majority of the votes that was required for a person to be elected, who knows who would have actually have been voted as president. This was not the right way to elect our president, a numerous amount of peoples voices weren't heard that day and many people were displeased. A different president could change everything, so why would we decide on who plays that role with only a difference on 5 votes, it just doesn't make since.
Now a days, we have technology. Technology plays a giant role in our lives, we use them everyday for so many reasons. Because of these wonderful sources, it's extremely easy to learn all things about who the candidates are and why we should vote for them and not someone else. Today, we have phones, computers, televisions, news papers, billboards and mail to inform us. Back then, they didn't have any of this, they couldn't learn the information they needed to know to make a vote that was actually meaningful. Now, we don't need to worry about being low on information to cast a good vote, its all just a click away.
Before this system worked wonderfully, everything was organized and nothing bad was bound to happen. But now we need to make a change. If we stay with these old techniques, people will become very unhappy. We need to make some changes in this system, all we need to do is slowly start the process of making some new adjustments.
The Electoral College system is a confusing system but it's one that would require a constitutional amendment to change. The electoral vote total does determine the winning candidate for president of the United States. It works this way because not everybody in the thirteen colonies trusted the government in the year 1787. Having to elect president and vice president by just the citizens' votes would be too deranged, the Framers thought. In the year 2000, George W. Bush got 271 electoral college votes with 47.9% of the popular vote while Al Gore got 266 electoral college votes with 48.4% of the popular votes, George Bush was elected president because he got more electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe the electoral college system is a valid way to elect president because just the citizens' votes might not be the best decision for their country. This system makes the candidates obligated to "chip in" a little something for each state. It lets each state know that a certain candidate is not only focusing on the big states like California. The candidate is also thinking about the smaller populated states like Wyoming. Also, this system keeps the election organized and less chaotic. If we didn't have the electoral college system, the candidates would be able to focus on getting votes in larger states and might ignore less populated states. Direct popular votes would cause tyranny to the majority. The democrats out number the amount of republicans in the United States. Republicans have the majority in many less populated states. So almost every president would be a democrat which really isn't fair to everybody. I strongly believe that the Electoral College is a good, organized and helpful system for the presidential election.
I believe that the Electoral College, (though sometimes they don’t elect the candidates with the popular vote on occasions such as the Bush and Al Gore election in 2000, where though Al Gore won the popular vote, the electoral college elected Bush.) is a good and smarter way of electing a President.
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College is made up of representatives elected to represent each state. The number of representatives each state has depends on the number of districts, which depend on the size of the population of a certain area. More population equals more districts, which in turn equals more representatives that are elected to represent that state in the Electoral College. The election process requires a majority of 270 votes in order to officially elect a President. Most candidates try to use a system consisting of focusing on the larger “Swing States”, which have a larger effect on the voting process because they have a larger number of representatives because of their larger population.
Candidates also focus on the states that are already loyal to them so that the other runner up doesn’t try to take that state away from them, in this sort of case you can relate this tactic to more of a game of chess and the candidates are trying to outsmart there opponent into getting a checkmate which in this case can be represented as getting more electoral votes than your opponent.
The reason I believe the Electoral College is a smart way of electing Presidents is that the representatives vote on who they think will be best for the common good, where as the popular vote might be based on a more personal level of choice not necessarily for who they think is right for the country itself.
I think the Electoral College is a valid way to elect a president because it balances the representation of each state along with that states population. I believe that the Electoral College is aptly suited for our capitalist system and coexists aptly with our Democratic Republic. Yes, it has some flaws - for example, back to the 2000 George W. Bush won the presidential election. He won via the electoral votes but lost the popular vote.
ReplyDeleteEven though thought the system may have flaws, which all systems have, in some way (especially in government) there are many upsides to our fashion of elections. Representation according to population comes in to play as a big part of the way the Electoral College works. The use of this system ensures states with a low population still have the state’s interests represented regarding the choice of president. A simple majority system would be better for equalizing the representation of individual voters, but states such as California, New York, and Florida would be disportionately represented due to there massive populations.
Another beneficial facet to the Electoral system is - even if we don’t reach our 270 votes needed for a candidate to become president we have a backup plan. Either way a president will be elected in an organized and efficient manner.
The system has worked admirably and I believe it will continue to do so. Our founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they agreed for our elections to work this way rather than form a Monarchy or Military state. I think this to be the closest we will ever get to having a perfect governmental establishment.
It is possible to win the popular vote but have another candidate become president because some of the electors are not required to vote based on the popular vote in their state. In 2000 the vote went according to the process established by the constitution, because not all the electors have to vote according to the popular vote they did not. However in some states the electors will have to pay a fine if they do not vote according to the popular vote in the state they represent.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Electoral College is not a valid way to run our elections; it may have worked for the government when they first established it but it no longer works for us. Because the electors are not obliged to vote as their state did we can end up with a false vote like we did in 2000, the 2000 election upset many people because the popular vote lost to the vote of the Electoral College. In my opinion a group of corrupt electors is the equivalent of a corrupt government.
Although this system may have worked for us when it was first established, it no longer does, we have the technology necessary to count the popular vote correctly, so why don’t we use it? I think it is because people are afraid of change, we get to know one system, on way of life, and we become afraid of trying something new. It is in the human nature to dislike change but sometimes we need to think less about what would make us more comfortable and more about what would benefit our society. I know we have the capacity to learn about our candidates and to make a good decision; we are capable of more than we think we are. I know it is not something people want to hear, but we need to start making some changes if we are ever going to better our society, even at the cost of having to do a bit more work than before.
Perfection is not something we can reach, but with a bit of work we can better our government and make our system work for our life now, and I think the start is getting rid of the Electoral College.
I believe that the electoral college should still be the way we vote for our leaders, but I also believe that it does need to change. It gives rights to people but in large ways sometimes, take them away.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the electoral college having the 270 out of 538 vote in the president elections but the electors should not be able to choose their own candidate, I believe that they need to go by the popular vote of the states citizens because if the electors can randomly choose their candidates that would be denying the rights of the citizens in that state. For instance of presidents chosen by the electoral college and not the people is George Bush (2000-2008). He won both terms by the electoral college's votes, look what he has done to our country, and other countries around the world! But i must think to myself, there are at least slight flaws in every form of government so the electoral college still follows that simple fact of humanitarian life.
Now for the good parts of the electoral college when it represents the peoples rights. it give each and every state equal representation instead of popular vote where states like California would have their votes overthrow Wyoming's. Also the electoral college knows what their states needs so if they are representing their citizens and not their own vote they will vote for what their citizens want, and what their citizens need over their opinion.
Overall I believe that the electoral college is a exceptional way to elect our leaders, even though it has its flaws on peoples rights, which I hope to correct those flaws to make the electoral college an already great thing even more great. :D
Yes, I do think the Electoral College is a great and thorough way to elect a president. this way, a president cannot be won over just by certain groups of people. It's evenly spread, and each state is represented by the population.
ReplyDeleteThis way, states with a higher population give the person who 'claims' that state in the election more points than a state with a very small population. This evenly disperses the population and states 'points' per state in the US.
Also, if either candidate doesn't reach a majority of 270 points, the back up vote with representatives is a perfect safeguard.
The Electoral College also helps bond our country together. It forces candidates to campaign across the country, and makes all states feel equal, bringing our country together. This is why we have stuck with the Electoral College all these years, even through upset and controversy.
One candidate may win the popular vote, but another may win the Electoral College vote. This is because the candidate who wins the Electoral College vote may have won a state that is worth more points than another. This shows that not everything is a popularity contest.
Maybe the biggest con about this plan is that most of the American people don't understand how the Electoral College works. It is a very complex and confusing system, but it gets the job done. This may have been one of the worries the framers had, but I'm sure they went with this plan for the good of the country and the common good, even if the common good may be confused with their decision.
So overall, the Electoral College may raise concerns and confusion among citizens, but if we, the people, really took the time to learn more about our country, I'm sure anyone would learn that the Electoral College really is for the common good, and good of our future.
As far as the election in 2000, Bush had more electoral votes, but Gore was more popular. Many people think "How does this work?", and this is where the public doesn't get how the Electoral College works. What happened was while Gore had higher popularity, Bush won more states with a higher electoral vote number. This means, the states Gore won had smaller electoral votes.
Some people may think this election wasn't fair. I think that it was completely fair, since electoral votes depend on the states population, and presidents should appeal to everyone, not just to be popular.
Overall, I think that the Electoral College is completely fair way to elect a president, even if some people may not agree with the system. Like everything in the United States, it's for the common good.
Yes, I do believe that the Electoral College is a valid way to elect our Presidents today. Many people have found very strong cons with the Electoral College, but in my opinion, the pros outweigh those cons. In my opinion, the most influential pro of the Electoral College is that each state gets the amount of say in the vote depending on the population of the state.
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College binds our country together; it makes candidates campaign across the country, giving Rhode Island, our smallest state population wise, the same amount of campaigning attention as California, the state with the largest population. This makes all the states feel like they are equal.
Even though our country’s voting system is not based on the popular vote, the majority of 538 electoral votes, which is 270 electoral votes, are needed for a candidate to win the election. If no majority is reached, the Electoral College has a suitable back up for deciding on the winner. That back up is a vote by representatives.
The winning candidate might not be the popular vote, for example, in 2000 in the race between Bush and Gore, Gore had the popular vote by about 543,895 votes, yet Bush won the electoral vote-winning majority with 271 votes winning by five electoral votes. As you can tell, the Electoral College forces the candidates to reach even the smallest states, and win all the states over because in the elections, even the smallest numbers count and popularity doesn’t win it for you.
As you can tell, in my opinion I believe that the Electoral College is an excellent way to find/ vote for the right candidate and that we should stick with it as our form for voting.
Yes, I do think that the founding fathers formed a near perfect {because nothing is} system for electing the president. Why do I think the electoral collage is better than a popular election? Because with the electoral collage the people vote and than an elector votes how the people say. Also with the popular election some people could be uneducated and vote for say the candidate with the best hair. One argument you could put against this is people should vote for whoever they want and not be educated. But things like this could bring anger to people that are educated because they knew that the uneducated person threw away there vote on the candidate with the best hair. Although the electoral collage has failed four times I still think that the framers of the constitution came up with the best idea possible. The popular election is still a good idea but there are far more uneducated people than there are educated and that could lead into the vote turning into a popularity contest. Witch is why I prefer the electoral collage.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the election of 2000 were Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the popular election but Bush won the electoral collage (Which made Bush president) I think that they made the right decision sticking to the roots of the constitution. Because I think that without them sticking to the roots it would stir up much more controversy than Gore wining the popular election and not becoming president. “No matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shake the soul and let the glory out. “
Al Gore
Yes, i do believe that the electoral collage is a valid system and that we should continue to use it. The electoral collage allows every state to be heard, no madder how big or small. Though, this system still is flawed, because the electoral collage gives the smaller states more power because with a smaller population, the majority of the state would be affected... Let me give an example, let's say that I, myself is a state... and you and five of your friends are another state. I vote for one thing and get the majority vote. No problem there. As for you, you and your friends vote for different things and two of them vote for something and you and two others vote for the thing im voting for. It's easier to win over small states over big ones because you have fewer people to persuade, but they still count as much as a big state would.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe that the "electoral college" system is a good way to elect our chief executive. Although this was agreed upon by the founding fathers, it is an invalid way of voting! our president should be chosen by the number of votes from citizens each candidate gets (one vote per citizen). Some may argue that this gives less power to the smaller states and that the electoral college evens this. But, the electoral college gives too much power to smaller states such as Wyoming! I think that that an only population (citizens) vote would work better if only the people were more open minded and didn't care only about their own state. if this were the case, a candidate from California could still fairly win if enough people from states on the east coast (for example) liked them. And if that same candidate wasn't the best, they wouldn't be voted for simply because the California citizens wanted to support their state!
ReplyDeleteI believe that the electoral college should stay the same beside the fact that there was a flaw with the 2000 election having more popular vote but winning over electoral votes. My reason is that this is a fair and easy way to elect a president with this system of the electoral voting it might be a little bit unfair for the smaller states but it gives everybody a equal vote in the system and not be based on popularity votes and win by a fair amount just be winning 270 out of 538 it’s not really that bad for election day because we have an even amount of representatives. This is electoral college is fair because this has only happened 3 times last one in 2000 by not having this are government will be messed up in election day by just having popular votes. This also makes it fair because the candidate has to visit every state to make each vote count . In the 2000 election some people believed that the votes were messed up even after a recount some say it was by the other candidate but he didn’t get any electoral votes so there’s got to be a way that bush one and that was by the electoral votes change the game of Election Day. That’s why literally every vote counts so get out there and vote.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Electoral College should stay and the reason being is that it's a fair, honest and staight forward way to elect a president. That way no one group of people have more power or say so than another in how we should decide who should run our country.A candidate running for president has to gain 270 electoral votes out of the 538 that exist throughout the U.S. and if no candidate receives a majority than another they 67% or six votes or its considered a run off election.Some pros of the Electoral College is it reconizes a role for the states in the selection of the president. Another pro is it encourages more person to person campaigning by candidates in big and small cities and battleground states. Another thing is that if in a contested election the recounts would be contined to a state or two instead of just doing it across the country. (that might be the case if there was a direct election of the president instead of the Electoral College.) The framers of the constitution were wary of giving power to the people to directly elect the president. Some had felt citizenry too beholden to local intrests or too easily able to believe misled information. Plus, at the time of lamps and quill pens a national election would just be too impractical. Some proposals gave pour into Congress but didn't sit well with Congress for very long because there were those who wanted true separation of new government. Still others felt that the state legislatures should decide who should be president but that would make the president too beholden to state intrests. And it wasn't until James Wilson proposed the idea of an Electoral College that the Constitutional Convention came to a compromise. In context of the Constitution the meaning of the word college in this case stands for not a school but a group of people organized in such a way towards a common goal (in this case the selection of a president.)The election of 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore had called the wisdom of the Electoral College system which had been the way the president had been selected ever since it had been established as the way the president would be determined into question.This was significant as well as importanr because it was the first time the supreme court got involved in an electoral decision for determining a president. The after affects of the 2000 election can still be felt through constantly and continously evolving voting machines to continuly make sure voting is consistently acurate so there's no error in the Electoral College. That's why I believe the Electoral College should stay just as it is because it's an effective way to make sure our next president is selected through an effective and through process in an honest and fair mannor.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not totally agree with the Electoral College. There are both PROS and CONS to the system. I understand why the founding fathers made this system because they knew that the people back in the 1800's were incapable of having the resources to comprehend the political system. The Electoral College would not allow candidates to win an election based solely on popularity. In the present time, we now have the technology to be able to know each candidates platform and what they feel is important for our country and with the education increasing, people are able to make a better decision on who should be president and vice president.
ReplyDeleteThe most persuasive CONS to the system is that the delegates might focus all their time concentrating on the bigger states so they can get more electoral votes, therefore ignoring the smaller states. The popular vote is not always the Electoral Colleges vote. In the 2000 election this is exactly what happened. George Bush was elected based off of the Electoral votes not the popular vote. This shows how there are flaws in the system. The election followed the process established by the Framers of the Constitution but it did not validate the majority vote. Many voters felt that their vote really didn’t matter since it did not come down to all the individual votes of the citizens of America. Why go to the polls if it comes down to the electoral vote? Why should one state have more say than another in who wins the most prominent position in America? With citizens being able to make a educated vote, the vote should now come down to the popular vote verses the electoral vote.
Warning: I'm posting my blog in sections because it is to long to fit on one!
ReplyDeleteDid the election of 2000 follow the process for electing a president that was set down in the Constitution of the United States of America?
Absolutely. The election in 2000 followed all the rules and regulations set down by the framers of the constitution during the continental congress in 1787.The reason that many people question that is because he won not by popular vote, which would have elected Al Gore to office, but by Electoral College, a system thought up by the founders of the Constitution. This system usually elects the President that would have won by popular vote, but in times when the popular votes are very close, certain states can cause this to happen, because, although they tried to make it even, in some states your vote counts more for an electoral college vote, and in some it’s less.
Why does the Electoral College system allow presidents to be elected by the Electoral College when (s)he didn’t win the popular vote?
ReplyDeleteThe Framers of the U. S. Constitution did not purposely make it so that the President could be elected by the Electoral College votes when the popular vote leaned the other way. They had reasons for the Electoral College system, but this outcome was more of a side-effect of this compromise that they made. Many of the delegates for the Constitution thought that the President should NOT be elected straight from the people. They said that people were easily corrupted. Also, transportation was hard back then, making travel slow and costly. This made it hard for candidates to travel between states and campaign. Some of the Framers were worried that the people wouldn’t vote for the best candidate, but that most local one, because they knew more about them. Many of these people thought that the President should therefore be elected by the congress, however, they were worried that this would give them power over the President, because they could then say, “You are here because I voted for you.” Many of the others thought that the people had the right to elect their own leader. They knew that we had parted from Britain because there was a tyrant as a leader and to make sure that the people were happy with the leader, they themselves would have to elect the President. The compromise was known as the Electoral College and it had the side affect previously stated above.
Do you believe the Electoral College is a valid way to elect the president today?
ReplyDeleteAlthough some people still believe that the Electoral College is still a good way to elect the President, I believe that it is out of date and no longer a quality way to elect the President of the United States of America. Sure, the solution of the Electoral College was a good one when the Framers of the U. S. Constitution put together the laws for our nation. Back then, almost 224 years ago, travel was slow and they were unsure that the people would not just vote for the local candidate. This concern disappeared years ago when travel got faster so candidates could campaign throughout our nation; it no longer applies to our nation. Our nation cannot have rules and laws that do not uphold the beliefs and well-being of a majority of the people of the United States of America.
Years ago at the Constitutional Convention the delegates from the states created this rule as a compromise. But the reasons for that compromise have scattered on the wind of time. No, it’s not that we don’t know what they were; it’s that they just don’t exist any more. Take, for example, the reason that the people could not find out about candidates from other parts of the country. During the time of the constitutional convention travel was hard and it took days to travel around. Candidates would not be known to all the people and the delegates feared that people would only vote for the local candidate they knew. And through this, there might be no clear majority in the country. That is no longer an issue. It only takes several hours to travel from one coast to the other. The candidates can travel from city to city. Radio and television can bring them straight into your home and you can listen to their speeches and watch them shake hands with people across the country, while sitting on the couch.
The Electoral College is an out-of-date solution that doesn't function any more. Just think about it. Is it supporting the common good? If it isn't pleasing even half of the people, it isn't (obviously). And does it please a majority of the people? Not when a Presidential Candidate wins an election when LESS than half of the people voted for them. The Electoral College is no longer a valid way to elect the President. Maybe you should think on that.
I support the electoral college because the people chosen to be in this system know that when it comes to voting for a president they need to pick the president that is best for all the states and not just a few, as said in the history book. The Electoral College can vote for any president they wish even if he or she doesn’t have the majority vote. Like in the 2000 president election, George W. Bush had only 47% of electoral votes compared to Albert Gore A. Jr. with 48%. The E.C. did not mess up but merely chose Bush over Gore because they believed he could be better for the states. So the Electoral College knows to choose president that is good for all states, but the people will rather vote for the president that is best for them and that is how it works in life. Many have tried to get rid of the Electoral College by sending in proposals for other ideas but the congress never let it pass with the 2/3 majority. They believe that it’s a good idea and they know what they are doing so I agree with them. The Electoral College is pretty foolproof though it has been running into some speed bumps. First of all some people who may not support the Electoral college would be asking, how do the political parties who appoint them know if they have what it takes to be in the Electoral College? And then why is it so confusing? Well the answers are the states prepare a list of the slate of electors for the candidate that gets the most popular votes on a certificate of Ascertainment. The Governor of every state has to write 7 certificates of Ascertainment. From there the states send one original copy and two authenticated copies, along with another two originals to the Archivist of the United States at the (NARA) by registered mail. They must be sent after something but not to late or they won’t be counted. This information is being used to prove that some people may think it is confusing and how they select electors, so that you can clearly see part of the not supporting side. Also many states have not been visited for over 40 years because all presidents shoot for is the electoral college approval at most, this may be fact but it all involves with peoples opinion so most negative arguments are weak. So it is a strong system and still is running perfect today it has helped us with hard choices and therefore I believe it should stay.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the Electoral College is a valid way to elect the President today.If the voting method was a popular vote there would be much more of a controversey between and within states.Some would vote for canidate A, others B and some would vote for C so in teh end the electors in each state keep teh voting fair for each state because each elector, representing X number of people,will have teh same affect in teh government. Our state, Washington, has 11, 9 electors adn 2 representatives.
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College has 583 votes, so teh majority would be 270there is 535 from teh states and 3 for the District of Columbia. The !st canidate to reach teh majority of 270 becomes the President Elect. THis way of voting is much neater adn much fairer than letting millions of people vote. The population does change everyday so a popular voteis too much. Again, with the electoral college, your vote is counted in your state to see which canidate your state is voting for. Then which ever canidate who was tallied the most in you state the electoral votes go to, in our case 11, goes towards the canidates goal of 270.
If a tie or nobody reaches 270, the House of Representitives chooses teh canidate with the most electoral votes to become the President elect.
In the election of 2000 the votes were so close. George Bush won with 271 electoral votes and Al Gore had 266. This shows how close the elections can be. Although most of the states were republican the vote was surprising on how close they were.
Although the Electoral College has been around for hudreds of years doesn't mean it doesn't work today.
The Electoral College
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College is the best way to elect the president and vice president of the United States. Out of the many ideas our founding fathers suggested, this one was chosen. It has worked quite well and until the 2000 election, many hadn't questioned this system. Because George Bush won the electoral Vote, and Al Gore won the popular vote, many were debating who should win. Because the larger states determine who our president will be if using the popular vote system, the electoral college was a way for smaller states to get more of a say in the voting process. The electoral Vote is actually based off of the popular vote because when the electors are chosen, it is up to them to have their vote reflect the will of the people they represent. George Bush ended up winning the 2000 election considering how our established system is supposed to work.
Our Founding Fathers looked ahead and prepared for a larger union. Because of their vision, the Electoral College was very helpful then, but is even more helpful now with more states that have greater differences in the population. If these noble men hadn’t planned for the future, our country wouldn’t be as successful as it is today.
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is a fair way to elect our Nations president for it has combined with the popular vote and concludes in making most citizens happy for all states now gets a say in who they want to run our country.
The Electoral College has proved to be a very successful way to elect our President, and there have been few who questioned this system until most recently, in the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. George W. Bush won the electoral vote, but Al Gore won the popular vote, leaving the final question of “Who won?” to the system itself.
ReplyDeleteHistory shows that this system has never failed and has always represented the views of the people in a fair and formal matter. Still, many would argue this system needs to be changed, considering that we now have Internet, television, radio, telephone, and other communication sources, all of the things that our ancestors didn’t have back then to advertise the candidates. But we are still trying to do the same thing we did then, make everyone’s vote count. The importance of the electoral vote compared to the popular vote is debatable. I believe each vote works together to create our current system, making them both equally important. I also believe this is an established system that our Founding Fathers made work; because of them we have a successful representative government that continues to stay successful throughout history.
The population vote drives the electoral vote. Each state, large or small in population is divided into voting districts. And each voting district has electors assigned to those districts, who more often than not vote the will the people. The candidate with the most electoral votes takes all the Electoral College votes from that sate using the winner-take-all system, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which can split their Electoral College.
The reason our Founding Fathers created this form of government is so larger states, which today include California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Texas, wouldn’t be the only ones deciding who our next president would be. James Madison said we need to be concerned about a super majority not the federal government. And to protect the people, the framers of the Constitution created an Electoral College system, established in 1787, so the minority has a say and not just the majority. This acts as a check and balance system. The Electoral College makes disparity among the state’s population less of an issue, evening things out. So yes, I agree that this form of government should stay.
I don’t think the electoral system is a good idea for several reasons, it is an old outdated system and should change to adapt based on more modern knowledge, ideas, and technology. The system that the Electoral College uses is slightly unfair to larger states because they have more people and they are getting less representation per person. Popular vote would work much better because we have the technology now that the founding fathers did not to count everyone’s votes and decide the winner based on that. When they elect electors they could be bribed or manipulated to choose another Candidate and that would mess up the system.
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College was chosen to prevent a tyrant from ruling and dominating the election which today seems ridiculous and unnecessary. The Electoral College was also made for a compromise of population and equal representation, which makes some sense although it complicates the system, which leads to another problem. That problem is if someone wins the popular vote they can lose the Electoral College and lose the election. This happened three times, one of the times was in the year 2000 witch was between Bush and Gore and a perfect example of why the electoral system does not work, Gore won the popular vote yet Bush won from the electoral vote. Clearly the electoral system wasn’t a good idea for several reasons and although it is still used today I think it is an outdated pointless system.
I think that the Electoral College is no longer a valid way to elect the president because it doesn’t reflect the popular vote. The Electoral College system takes the majority of the population’s votes and gives Electoral votes to the Presidential nominee nominated by the majority. If the citizens that are the voting minority are almost equal to the citizens that are the voting majority in large states and the presidential nominee wins small states then the presidential nominee can get the majority vote in the nation, but lose the electoral college, because the large state hold the most electoral votes. Every persons vote should count not just large states electoral votes. To win an electoral vote of 270 a candidate would only need to win the 12 largest electoral vote states. That is approximately one-fourth of the U.S. to win the election and this is not fair to the voters of our country nor does it reflect the popular vote.
ReplyDeleteI believe from the information I have read concerning the Election of 2000 that President Bush won fairly and followed the process set forth by the framers of the constitution. This was an interesting election. Clearly, Al Gore won the popular vote by .5% and George W. Bush won the Electoral votes by 1.
The Electoral System is set up to give the people a way to vote their preference on a Presidential Candidate without having to count thousands of ballots and travel hundreds of miles. It was designed by the founding fathers to allow a small amount of people to come together and vote for a presidential candidate without having to support or vote for the state candidate where they lived.
The founding Fathers did not count on the massive communication and technological advances and the growing population of the United State that is prevalent today. They did not expect political parties to appear and nominate presidential candidates. they designed a system that they could easily manage and hopefully fail most of the time so that the election would be sent to congress. Now in the twenty-first century the system is still working yet, I believe it is highly out dated. It rarely, presents the popular vote. I believe that our founding fathers were trying to establish a system based on popular vote. In conclusion, the electoral system should be replaced by a popular vote system where everyones vote is counted and counts.
The Framers of the United states constitution created a process for electing a president that may or may not be a good way of electing the president. Each state choses electors that casts the official votes for the presidents.Some people really the electoral voteing and some people really like the popular voteing.
ReplyDeleteThere are Pro's and Con's to the electorial voteing. One good thing about the Electoral college is that it encourages more person-to-person campaigning by canidates, as they spend time in both the big cities and smaller cities in battleground states. Another one is that the Electoral college, in recognizing a role for states in the selection of the president reminds us of the importaints in our Federal system. One not so good thing as this the Electoral college gives disproporitouate weight to the votes of the citizens of the small states. For example, a vote by a resident of Wyoming counts about four times more, electorally, than a vote by a californian. Another one, is the Electoral college system especially in a close election is subject to the mischief that might be caused by disloyal, or even bribed electors.
i beleive they folowed the process of electing a president but when all the votes were casted in the popular vote were higher to vote for, Al Gore. But the electoral people are smarter then us normal people and said "Bush would be a better president" and so George became our president. It's safe to say that the people didn't even need to vote because it doesnt matter what the popular vote is. It's going to be up to the Electoral people who make the decision.
I don't think its fair for me to want the Electoral college or not want it because, If i did like the Electoral college then all the small states wouldn't have a fair trial against the larger states such as California, Texas, Ect. The larger states would have a better chance to get what they want and the smaller states wouldnt have a good chance to get what they want at all. But it i said that i didnt want the Electoral College then when you cast a vote in. The magority in popular votes wants a certain person but the Electors want the other person, They come in and say "this person is a better choice" Then what was the point of voteing when they chose who it will win anyways. My opinion is in the middle. It could be eaither one
I do not believe that the Electoral College is valid way to elect a president. There are some pros to this system, because it is simple to determine who wins, but this system does not technically give each state an equal vote. Each state gets electors by adding their number of representatives and the two senators. The number of representatives in a state is based on the population but all states get two senators. The senators are what throw the say per person off balance. This isn’t very fair to the large states because they have more people yet the small states get more say per person even though they have a lower total number of votes. If it was the number of representatives only to determine the number of electoral votes it would be fair but since they all get to add two (for the senators) it unbalances them.
ReplyDeleteThere are some things that are good about this way of electing a president. To win an election a candidate must get 270 votes. This would be the majority; there are 538 votes total. If this does not happen, then the legislature elects the candidate with the highest number of votes. This only happened once and it was between the candidates Kennedy and Nixon. This is a very fair way of electing a president, if no one reaches the requirements.
However the Electoral College can cause problems that outweigh the benefit. For example, in 2000 there was a huge problem with the presidential elections. The two main candidates were George W. Bush and Al Gore. The elections were very close and Al Gore had the popular vote, yet Bush ended up winning. This caused problems in Florida because they had such a close state vote. They had to re-count and they even had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court twice. Florida is a big state so they had to get the votes counted correctly. In the end Bush still won even though the popular vote was for Al Gore. I think that this shows there is a flaw, since Bush won even though more people wanted Al Gore. It has actually happened four times total when the popular vote didn’t win. This doesn’t seem very fair to me because it actually ends up pleasing the minority which means more people are unhappy then happy and I don’t think that is what the Framers of the Constitution wanted to achieve. I think that the election followed the process that the Framers created, but it highlighted that the system does not give everyone an equal vote. If it did, the people would have elected Al Gore.
The Electoral College system is confusing to many. The idea of this system is good but really there are many flaws in it. Although many like this type of system and it was useful when it was originally designed, I believe the time has come to re-examine its purpose and the way in which it is used. The American people need to act and they need to act fast about changing this system. Since it’s design by our Founding fathers much has changed and the reasons for the Electoral College are not what they were in the 1700’s.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the system be changed? There are obvious reasons that show why it should be changed. The way that the Electoral College works is that it permits a candidate to win the majority of the popular vote and yet still lose the election! The Founding fathers probably never dreamed of this possibility even though it occurred during the presidential election in 2000. Al Gore won the majority of the popular vote, however Bush still became president because he had more of the electoral votes. A system is flawed when a candidate can receive more votes and still lose the election. Finally, when people vote they may not realize that they are actually voting for an ‘elector,’ a person who will represent their pledged candidate in the Electoral College. It has happened in the past that people who were selected as an ‘elector’ and pledged to a specific candidate actually changed their vote when it came time to elect the president. Finally, the technology today has increased tremendously and we can now easily keep track of the popular vote to elect the president. I also believe that back when the founders created our current system they believed that people wouldn’t be as informed about the election and wouldn’t be able to make an educated choice on whom to elect. Today, I think this is outdated and now people have their own opinions and are well educated to fight for the candidate they believe is the right choice for president.
I believe we need change and we need it soon. The Electoral College worked beautifully and as it was designed but now it’s time to adapt a more modern system for today’s presidential election.
While the Electoral College system may have worked in the 1800’s, when campaigning was difficult because of the lack of media and ability to travel quickly, I believe it is not the system that represents our voices fairly today. In my opinion, the Electoral College fails to accurately represent the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe division of the Electoral votes can give more power to some states. For instance, in 1988 each Floridian’s individual vote had only thirty-three percent of the weight of an individual vote in Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, South and North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. Depending on the state, individual votes can carry various weights. This completely eliminates the idea that one person gets one whole vote. In my opinion, each citizen should be represented as one full vote, not a partial vote depending on the population of their state.
The majority rule in the Electoral College allows for the winner of the Presidential Election not to have the direct popular vote. Washington State has eleven Electoral votes, which means that if seven of those votes wanted one candidate, Washington State would vote for that candidate. This is extremely unfair to the other five Electoral votes that wanted another candidate, because their votes would be transferred to the majority candidate. In my perspective, the other five votes are not for the majority candidate, so it is misrepresentation of the people’s will to allow those votes to choose another elect.
In 2000, George W. Bush won the Electoral College, however Al Gore won the direct popular vote. I believe that if the nation wanted Al Gore, but Bush was elected, then our system is clearly flawed. However, the 200 election did follow the format the Framers of the Constitution set down for us. George Bush won 271 of the electoral votes, while Al Gore won 261, therefore following the system the Constitutional Convention set down, Bush was elected president.
Our nation was built on the idea that we should be for the people, by the people. The Electoral College can misrepresent the will of the people; therefore it is not a valid way to elect a President.
I believe that he Electoral College is a valid way to govern the United States of America, because it has served this country for 200 years and it has done a great job. So far, there has only been three occasions that the system has failed and even then, we have a backup plan just for something like that. Failure has happened in these three occasions, the first time in 1864, the second time in 1888, and the last time in 2000.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Electoral College has a few flaws, I still believe that the systems good parts outweigh the bad greatly. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, especially in the government. Compared to most government pieces, the Electoral College looks great. The system works in a fair way by distributing equal amounts of power to each state no matter how large the population is. If we changed the government now, we would be making a huge mistake.
I like the Electoral College because it makes sure that the presidential candidates don’t just visit the large states in order to win. They have to go to all sized states because each state is equal in representation. Some may say that we need a new government because we have so many advances in technology like television, computers, and cell phones. That doesn’t change my mind one bit. Sure people now can understand better what the candidates say they are going to do but face it. If a stubborn American sets their mind, they are most likely not going to change. Also, they caught wind of what the candidates were going to do anyways back then. Sure they couldn’t physically see the candidate talking or get to watch they argue with one another on live television, but they still understood what each person was planning for their newly claimed Country.
A reason why I think that we shouldn’t switch our ways is because of the effect that it might have on the citizens of the States. If they made a mistake, it could be the down fall of the great civilization we have today. Do you really want to take the chance? This is why I believe that the Electoral College is the right was to elect the president.
I believe yes to the Electoral College. It is a fair way to elect a president. I say this because the president cannot be chosen fairly between the countries because each country will want someone from their country as the president. Thus, the Electoral College is something that is fair, equal, and just plain more simple than an argument over who should be the president. In 2000, George W. Bush had gotten up to 271 Electoral College votes with the present of 47.9% from the over all popular vote and a man named Al Gore had gotten a fair vote of 266 Electoral College votes with a 48.4% present of the popular vote. The new president was George Bush and he was elected to become the president because he had more electoral votes than Al Gore.The person who wins to be the president must get 270 electoral votes out of the 538.
ReplyDeleteMy answer to this question is no, I do not believe that this is a good way to elect a president because of a couple of reasons. The first reason is that it is not fair to the people. If people, for example, George W Bush vs. Al Gore, if people want Al Gore, but more than half of the people vote for George, then George will win. The next reason is that people want to have a say in their vote. They do not get that with the electoral college. They just tell whoever runs their state and then the state will tell what they voted. If a person gets 270 Electoral college votes, they win. But if all the people have say in who they are voting for, then it will be more fair towards the people.
ReplyDeleteI do not particularly agree with the electoral college, on the fact I believe it would be more well suited for something like the votes of laws, or something nation wide that might be better for certain areas. with the voting of the president, it MIGHT have something to do with a certain area, but still wont have that great of an affect. I believe the majority of people should have their own vote, because, even though I might not have wanted Al Gore for the presidential office (my own opinion), it WAS what the people wanted. The reason I say that it would be better suited to deciding taxes and whatnot, is because with taxes laws, and other issues to be decided by voting, the issues are more locally prominent than in certain areas than others, and therefore can be sectioned into areas of population. I believe that, as with the 2000 election, it was, and is, not fair to the people to have voted for this majority.The good things THIS method of voting is for, is that every state has their own vote. This makes it so that, depending on region (and population), a state will get a vote best for its own area, but that doesn’t mean that it can be that way nation wide.
ReplyDeleteNo. I think that it is a system that has worked okay so far but that it definately has flaws in it. In the 2000 elections George W. Bush and Al Gore were running for president. When the votes were officially counted, it showed that Bush won with a total of 271 electoral votes and Gore had 266. When you really count each vote and make the elections nation wide Gore won the popular vote. As we all know the popular vote is not the one that wins you the election, it's the electoral vote that does. I think we should change that and make it nation wide.
ReplyDeleteMore people wanted Gore to be president but the elctoral college says that Bush won. I think this is one of the biggest flaws about this system. The fact that you can lose even though you won the popular vote. I guess the founding fathers didn't think of how many people might be living in their country many years later and it would have probably worked well withput this many people.
The good side I see about the electoral college is that the voting is done state wide so the candidates really have to focus on certain states and their needs becuase they have the most populationa and therefore the most electoral votes. This prevents it from making two states with totally different populations equal as we say.
If there ws anything I could change to make it seem better for me it would be that I would make the number of electoral votes that you need higher. I would make it a super majority of 300 or 350 because we are talking about electing the president, the man or woman that will lead our country for the next 4 years, it is a big decision and even though I personally don't like the electoral college way of choosing the president it will have to do and we have to make the most of it.
I believe that the Electoral College system is a valid way to elect the president of the United States. The Electoral College systems give all states a voice in their independent vote, no matter the size of the state big, or small. The Electoral College has some minor flaws in its system, such the smaller states they are granted with more power, because of their lower population. Not giving the popular vote a high chance, of being chosen. There was an incident in with the 2000 election having more popular vote but winning over electoral votes, this happened in the election vs. George W. Bush and Al Gore there was more votes for Al Gore but Gorge bush ended up winning because of the electoral votes. When states vote they need at least 270 votes out of 538 for the vote to be registered in. this system gives a fair, vote to the candidates.
ReplyDeleteNo, I dont think that the electoral college is valid
ReplyDeleteanymore because…
Our country has outgrown the need of a buffer between the people and
the selection of a President. It is an age of technology where we can instantly know
things from across the country or from around the world. We can discuss issues
with the other side of the world in real time without moving from our desks. It is
simplistic and easy for people in our country to not only consider what is best for
themselves, but what is good for the country.
Not only is it not needed anymore, but it is also flawed in that a president can
be chosen that does not have the popular vote or in other words, what the people
want. An example of this happening is in 2000, when George W. Bush won the
election in the house of representatives after neither Washington or Al Gore got the
majority of 270. The house of representatives was split to only a 5 seat difference
and the house of the senate was split into 50-50 democrat vs. republican.
If the electoral college system can let a candidate win that does not have the
popular vote then that means it does not reflect the intentions of the people. Also,
the electoral colleges distribution of the number of vote to a state is unfair to larger
states because smaller states have more states per person so it would be like saying
they are more important, because there is no reason that smaller states should get
more votes than larger states and this unfairness is the effect of including the senate
+ representatives for electoral votes since in the senate, the smaller states also get
more senators per person.
Some might argue that a direct election by the people will shut out smaller
states because smaller states have smaller population of people and so it wont be so
necessary for candidates to address the needs of them to win an election. But, if a
president really only wanted to win the election, then I don’t think this person
would be the best president. A president that desires to lead the U.S. will try to take
into consideration everyone’s needs in the U.S. and not just what more people want.
Although, they would address the needs of a more populated state first to make
more people happy, it doesn’t mean that the concerns of smaller states will be
ignored by presidents.
Now, I don’t think that just a direct vote for a president is the best way to
elect a president because this way, the country could definently be split into
something like 49.9% to 50.1% or something like that, and I don’t think that make
people support the elected president, and there would probably be a bunch of
recounts. I think there should be some sort of rule of majority like in the electoral
college system that has a need of 270 but we shouldn’t just give the descision of
electing a president that represents billions of people to the hands of 500 something
people. That’s haveing 1 person decide the vote of millions of people, which would
not reflect the wants of the people at all as the electoral college system has shown us.
Although a direct election by the people may not be the best alternative, I
dont think that the electoral college system reflects what the people want as well as
a direct election does. Therfore I stand by a direct election as a better option.
Since 1787, our nation has followed under the Electoral College system. The men who drafted the Constitution debated about the way the president should forever more be chosen- letting Congress vote, giving state legislatures the choice, putting the power directly in the people’s hands- but they finally settled on the idea of an Electoral College. This is a process that we have used for over two- hundred years now, and even though people have proposed to remove this method, it still remains.
ReplyDeleteI have learned both sides of the argument and I have agreed with one. The Electoral College is the best way to elect the presidential candidate that is the most fit to govern our country.
When the Framers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they decided upon a specific procedure to choose a president. It was stated that each person that is of age and eligible in every state will vote to select their state electors of their choice and the presidential candidate they want to have govern the United States. The number of electors a state has is equal to the number of senators and representatives they have in Congress. In the state of Washington there would be 11 electors( 2 senators and 9 representatives). In most states, there is also a law that the electors must vote with the popular vote of their state. However, the way that this system is set up, it is possible for a candidate to be elected without having the majority of the nation-wide vote.
A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to be elected as president out of the total 538 that are distributed between states. The votes are spread by population. The larger population a state has, the more representatives it has and the more electors it has too. In case it occurred the Framers also planned for the event where neither candidate reach 270 electoral votes. The solution would be to have the representatives vote instead of the electors re-voting.
The Electoral College system forces the candidates to visit the "swing states" more too. Swing states are states where there is not a consistent majority of Democrats or Republicans. These are also usually the smaller states. These small states matter in the long run because there could be just 5 votes in between the winning candidate and the loser.
This was the case in the election of 2000. George W. Bush was competing against Al Gore for the presidential position. The election resulted with Bush becoming the president, at 271 electoral vote, over Gore's 266 electoral vote. One elector refrained from voting. The popular vote of the nation however was for Gore. This could have been the final result if Gore had won more of the swing states votes. I understand that this may seem illogical and strange that this could happen, but there is a reason. Receiving more electoral votes, means that you've been voted for more in larger states or more states as a whole. Getting the popular vote though means that the population in general thought that you were the best candidate.
In the long run, the Electoral College is the best option, because it divides our presidential election into smaller, more easily controlled voting sessions, and therefore, saves our country money by not needing to hire as many vote counters. Plus, it is a way to spread the votes evenly over the states and works for the common good of the United States.
Our government has used the Electoral College system since the Constitutional Convention voted it in the late 1700s. The Electoral College system is when each state has an amount of electors based on their counties and population. There are 538 electors and a candidate needs 270 of the electors’ votes to win. On election day, voters are actually voting for electors who are pledged to support a certain elector. Sometimes, the electors’ vote differs from the populations’ vote. This has happened before, in the election of 2000. George W. Bush won the 2000 election with 50,460,110 population votes and 271 electoral votes. Al Gore had 51,003,926 population votes and 266 electoral votes. Al Gore had about 400,000 more vote from the population than Bush and lost.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Electoral College system is the best system for electing a president. I am going against the population vote because there are some problems with it. Sure, the people get to vote for who they want. But what if some famous actor who doesn’t know much about politics and government, runs for president. A lot of people might think it would be funny to see a movie star trying to run our country. The electors will pick the candidates with the best capability of running the country.
The Electoral College system has been working for us for over two hundred years. There has only been a few times where the popular vote was different than the electoral vote. Once in 1876, once in 1888, and once in 2000. The Electoral College system is better than a population vote because it forces candidates to campaign on a state to state basis. Along with the big cities, they will spend time in the smaller states too. Smaller states get a say in the election. Also, if we relied on the popular vote, than if two candidates were close, they would have to do a full recount. with the Electoral College system, the recount only confides in two or so states. the Electoral College system avoids a recount of the entire nation.
The Electoral College system is the best way of electing a president. We have been using this system for over 200 years and are going to use it in the future. there are many advantages the Electoral College system that the popular vote doesn’t have. That is why the Electoral College system is the best way for electing a president.
The Electoral College is little more than useless…
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College has good and bad characteristics. If this were the year 1789, then this post would pour over how the Electoral College is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But this is 2011, and as of right now, this method of voting should be as dead as the people who conceived it.
The Electoral College was made in the 1700’s and is a voting system where citizens vote for their electors who will represent their state and vote for president based on the citizens’ interests. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes based on their population. The candidate that gets the majority of electoral votes in a state gets all of that states electoral votes. There are 538 electoral votes in total, and the first to a majority 270 votes wins the election.
If you’ve never really explored how the Electoral College is set up, then you may be wondering why in the world anyone would go to all this trouble to vote. Why isn’t the president voted for directly by the people? Why is the system set up this way?
The Electoral College was made for the purpose of avoiding a tyrant from taking presidency. They were afraid of that happening because information didn’t travel as quickly as it does today, so people would be uneducated about the candidates and everybody would vote for somebody from their own state.
The traditional method of electing somebody for anything, not just president, is to put it to a vote. Every person gets one vote, simple as that. The person with the most votes gets appointed and life goes on. Why don’t we do this? My opposing thinkers would say things like, “Because the smaller states won’t get their say.”
Let’s say that you’re Nebraska, you’re more of a rural, farming state with less population than most other states. The other states will have more power than you and you’re vote counts for little. But this argument isn’t even valid! This is the UNITED States of America! Even if a democrat gets elected, and Nebraska wanted a republican, the president isn’t going to declare war on Nebraska! She/he will understand that Nebraska is important too, and that we need every state to maximize our country to its full potential.
A couple of years ago, in the 2000 election, George Bush won the presidential election over Albert Gore because of the Electoral College. Albert Gore had almost one million more popular votes than George Bush, but still lost the election because Bush received a mere 5 more electoral votes. This process followed the way that the framers of the constitution wanted it to be, because they thought that the voters would be uneducated. But today information moves fast, and people are more educated. The Electoral College just isn’t necessary or practical and it has long outlived its usefulness. Voting for the president of the United States is a big deal, and feckless voting methods aren’t a step in the right direction.
The electoral college has mostly good traits in it. One of the duties of the Electoral College is that it has to view the roles of the states in congress and the nation archives and records administration. It also has to have it's state executives and electors to be responsible for completing election duties outlined by the constitution of the united states and federal law. The electoral college gives its state an individual vote so it can speak for itself and also speak freely. States with a low population have less power in the votes because it doesnt have enough people in it, therefore giving it a smaller chance of speaking their mind and being elected. there are more states with a high population than there are with a low population, so the ones with a higher population have a bigger and more powerful leader to control them giving them a better chance of being elected. So i think the electoral college should be kept the way it is without any changes and should continue on what it has been doing best for the years behind it.
ReplyDeleteElectoral College - Behind the Scenes.
ReplyDeleteHey, all you readers! It's been a long time, but I am back. So here's the deal: I am going to make a statement you may or may not agree with. I think the Electoral College isn't really needed nowadays. The Electoral College was needed back when the Constitution was made because people back then were not as educated as we are now. They didn't have candidates that would come to their state and say what they were representing.They would have to play it by ear. It is hard to make a choice for a person that you don't know or what they stand for. They could want something that could be bad for the people. I think the Electoral College takes the vote away from the people. The vote of the Electoral College was once what really decided who the winner was. The Electoral college doesn't always agree with the majority of the votes. They sometimes chose the person that wasn't the best. But unfortunately they make the final vote. An example of the Electoral College not going with majority is the 2000 elections. The Electoral College chose President Bush even though he didn't have the majority. As you can see in this day of instant comunicatio, the Electoral College is not really needed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I do think that the electoral college or electoral vote is a valid way to elect the president today. My reasons for this opinion is because as big populated states like California and Texas are a very populated state, so since that they have a very high population, then that means their population grows greater and faster.
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be fair if they voted for the same president. All the small states wouldn't have a fair fighting chance to choose who they wanted for president if we only used the popular vote. The electoral vote helps make everything even. Small states with low population, even some big states like Alaska has a low population also.
So states that have a very low population like North and South Dakota, Alaska, maybe Maine, have a even way to vote for who they want for president by having the electoral college or the electoral vote. So this way, throughout the United States, votes are evenly balanced including electoral votes.
I've been browsing on-line greater than three hours these days, yet I by no means discovered any fascinating article like yours. It is lovely price sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all webmasters and bloggers made excellent content material as you probably did, the net shall be a lot more useful than ever before.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my blog post - click the up coming website