Is the electoral college the Best Way to Select the President? The question posed is “Is the Electoral College the Best Way to Select the President?” There are two outstanding flaws in the Electoral College and two logical reasons to keep the method instated which will be presented in the following. The opposing argument insists that the will of the American people is misrepresented. Some states are also more influential than others which can also lead to one sided elections. Those who are for the college agree that the process keeps the white house safe from bias. They also feel that the population of larger states is adequately represented.
My own feelings on how the “scale” of pros to cons weighs out will be in the conclusion. Put simply, the will of the American people is not represented in the Electoral College. There have been several elections in which the Electoral College chose the candidate with the minority of the popular vote. Most notably in history was the election of 1824 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. The populace clearly wanted John Adams as president, but the Electoral College decided otherwise.
This was a big mistake for the Electoral College, and only one of many. The people were also misrepresented in 1844, 1880, 1884, 1960, and 1968. In many cases if the voice of the people is heard, it is ignored if an elector is a beneficiary or bias to some president’s policy. In short, the middle and lower classes are not part of the triangle which only leaves room for the will of elitists. The next con at hand is the plight of misrepresented (or underrepresented) states. As we all know the power houses of the electoral votes are California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
The Term Paper on Electoral College Reform Vote Election Votes
... indeed voting for president, did not. The Electoral College was established in a compromise between a direct election system, supported by ... losing to his opponent. The Electoral College cast the final vote in that election. The people who went out to the ... Therefore, one electoral vote in California represented more people's popular votes than did all three electoral votes for the state of Alaska. ...
These states are just as misrepresented as well as smaller states because of the concept of winner-take-all with each state. California has 55 electoral votes; if candidate A gets 27 votes and Candidate B gets 26, candidate A gets all those votes in California. Technically, 26 of those votes shouldn’t belong to candidate B. Every democratic candidate can count on a firm base of 55 votes each election because of the majority of California’s political stance and the winner-take-all rule. So with California in the bag, all a democratic candidate needs to do is counter the republican candidate’s baby-kissing in Texas and Florida, make an occasional visit to New York and the democratic campaign has a rock solid foundation for the presidency. The electoral college keeps the election safe from a public bias when compared to the desire of a popular vote driven election.
Some say that powerful elitists choose the president that best benefit their desires and that they should not choose the president. This is far from the truth. The theory of the Electoral College was that an educated group of individuals are to be appointed to decide what is best for the country. They became “elitists” because of their education, which is imperative to be an elector that they used to acquire high paying jobs as lawyers, attorneys and various government roles. When the Electoral College was formed, the majority of society was uneducated. This left them vulnerable to a candidate with empty promises or one with a terrible policy and no economic intelligence.
In a free market economy, the flow of goods and services is vital to the stability of the nation and the electors had the education and knowledge to choose the best candidate whether supported by the popular vote or not. Most of America is educated now so does that mean a change in the electoral system is needed? No. The system has worked since it was conceived and continues to be thorough and well executed by our leaders. Lastly, the Electoral Colleges method of state representation accurately gives power to the states that are most influenced by the election of a presidential candidate. Many have complained that smaller states are misrepresented because of the unfair ratio of representatives to population count. The truth is that states are given the appropriate amount of electoral votes when compared to their population because they have little influence on the economy and politics to begin with.
The Essay on Electoral Votes Vote Popular State
... that state has. This no big if you live in Vermont, but if you are talking about California with 54 electoral votes, you ... candidate has 56% of the vote in a state. That doesn't mean he gets half of the votes, that means he gets all ten electoral votes ... The electoral college has been our method of electing president's since eth constitution ...
So if Alabama’s electoral votes counted as much as California’s the final vote of the election would not accurately display the will of the American people and give nay sayers a possible third point against this institution. In my frustrated attempt of Janus ian thinking I come to a justified conclusion: the Electoral College isn’t the best way to elect the president. The theory of the Electoral College was sound assuming that man isn’t corrupt and that human nature is inherently good. This is not the case because of the human nature to abuse power.
Having a chosen committee to choose the president efficient but many rules in the electoral institution need revising which outweigh the pros. With more cons then pros, the Electoral College should not be the method to choose the president.
