¶ … election of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000, who won the electoral vote in spite of losing the popular vote, rekindled a controversy that has been going on for some time now: has the Electoral College mechanism lived its time?
According to the United States constitution, each state is entitled to choose its electors for president and vice-president as a number equal to the total number of representatives and senators the respective state has. The choosing itself is left to the states, by direct popular vote in each state. If the voting for President is a tie, the Constitution specified that this would be decided upon in the House of Representatives. In the initial way the Electoral College was designed by the founding fathers, the winner of the majority of electoral votes would win the election and become president, while the runner-up would become Vice-President. Of course, it is necessary to look at things as they were in the times the founding fathers deigned the mechanisms: no political parties, for instance.
One of the negative implications of the Electoral College, as pointed out by many theoreticians, is the "winner take all" method, according to which the candidate that has won most number of votes in one state will win the entire number of electoral votes the respective state has. This would mean, in their opinion, that many individual votes would have simply been "wasted"
. Their line of argumentation is quite simple and is exemplified by the Bush-Gore election of 2000. In this case, if we consider, for example, the state of , enough, however, to give way to discussions about the democratic legitimacy. The democratic alternative argument seems more than reasonable. Indeed, a president democratically elected is supposed to represent the interest of the majority of the population. In the case when he does not represent the majority, we should, theoretically, be in a democracy dilemma.
Despite all the faults and negative aspects often associated with the Electoral College, many of which have been previously presented, there are numerous voices that turn to its support. One of the arguments in this sense comes from Polsby and Wildavsky, who argue that "there is no serious reason to quarrel with the major features of the present system, since in our form of government 'majority rule' does not operate in a vacuum but within a system of 'checks and balances
." The idea behind this statement relies on the fact, similarly pointed out…
Electoral College: Should the U.S. Push for Reform or Elimination? When citizens of the United States vote in a presidential election, many believe that they are taking part in a direct election of the president (Sutin 2003). However, because of the existence of the electoral college, established in the U.S. Constitution, this is not really true. The electoral college is a set group of "electors" who are nominated by political activists and
ELECTORAL COLLEGE BE ABOLISHED? The Electoral College system for electing the President was widely examined and often criticized following the November, 2000 election. Two times in recent history we faced the possibility that a Presidential candidate would get most of the popular vote and yet lose in the Electoral College. The Electoral College interferes with the individual voter's opportunity to express a preference for one candidate over another because only
This is just as important as having a president who is equally representative of the interests of each state. The Founding Fathers succeeded admirably in the area of state-based election of the president, but did they succeed in also ensuring we have a democratically elected president? Are public presidential elections really shams, leaving us with a president who is essentially appointed by political party favorites, or does he represent
Electoral College System The Presidential Elections of 2000 have once again raised doubts regarding the effectiveness of the electoral college system. A straight accounting of the popular vote showed that Democratic candidate Al Gore had a lead of over 500,000 votes over his opponent, George W. Bush. The Supreme Court was thus forced to assume the role of electoral arbiter for Florida's vote count, which resulted in the latter's victory via
Abolish the Electoral College Now! Definition of the Problem: The United States has a problem and just kicking it down the road isn’t enough anymore. The Electoral College was established in 1787 during a period in America’s history when the Founding Fathers had few models to draw on when they crafted the presidential election laws. Since its establishment, the Electoral College has been the formal body that is used to elect the nation’s
Over the years, the electoral process has changed a lot. As per the original rules, each state legislature selected its electors. The electors would then assemble at a given time and vote for two people. The person with the majority of votes became the president and the runner-up became the vice-president. This system was in practice until the 1800 election. (the Presidential Electoral Process) By 1800, American politics were dominated
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now