The founders fought like cats and dogs over how the president should be chosen. In 2016, the results were even more dramatic. The truth is . If that occurs, the court might provide states additional guidance on just how much leeway they have to impact the Electoral College vote that decides the presidency of the United States. While politicians continue to put major focus on highly-populated urban cities of many states, such as Cleveland, Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Electoral College pushes candidates to address issues in states as a whole and not just in metropolitan regions. Britannicas ProCon.org lists three reasons: 1) The founding fathers thought the Electoral College was the best method for electing the president.2) The Electoral College ensures that different parts of the country, such as Iowa and Ohio, are involved in selecting the president, rather than just the most populated areas.3) The Electoral College guarantees certainty, whereas a popular vote system might lead to no candidate getting a majority. So lets put the power to select the president where it actually belongs, in the hands of all the people. Every vote would count equally instead. But it's possible the candidate with the most votes from the public won't be the winner. LIASSON: It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, so that's not going to happen. Thats because, regardless of its overall merits, change is always rooted in the politics of the day. But as people moved and the economy changed so did that ratio. List of the Pros of Abolishing the Electoral College 1. Instead of having a regional focus that incorporates specific campaigning elements, there would be a national campaign instead. The correct number is 102. The primary benefit of the electoral college is that it works to protect the best interests of the minority in every election. The system calls for the creation, every four years, of a temporary group of electors equal to the total number of representatives in Congress. When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it compels the state to award its electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won in that state. First, there's the Constitutional problem. The following table shows how this would have changed the outcome in two contested elections of the 21st century, and how a third would have remained the same. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. Activists, with the aid of misguided state legislators, have begun to gain ground in the states, with NPV arising as a serious threat to the stability of our presidential election process. If you live in a state where youre in the political minority, your vote is effectively erased. Third, a national election might provide a cure for the delegitimation of presidential authority that has afflicted the last three presidencies. All parts of the country would not be involved in the selection of the president. They are simply party loyalists who do not deliberate about anything more than where to eat lunch. In most cases this should prevent the popular vote loser from becoming president. But its logic, its distortion of the democratic process and its underlying flaws will still strongly influence the conduct of the election. Or is it working the way it is supposed to? Almost no one would adopt an Electoral College today if we were starting from scratch. As a result, Republicans and Republican state governments are incentivized to maintain the current system. The presidential election in 2016 saw a modern-era record for faithless electors, but five of them came from the Clinton camp. It's time to renew your membership and keep access to free CLE, valuable publications and more. "Precisely what it does is proportionately advantages where the people are," Levy said. That line garnered one of her largest roars of applause for the evening. "Every vote matters," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in Mississippi on Monday. Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Ron Paul, and Faith Spotted Eagle received one each. Thats almost 1.5 billion votes. Given that a change would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures, it is not going to happen. Only one election was so close that it had to go to the House of Representatives, which is how John Quincy Adams won over Andrew Jackson. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. Find all our Student Opinion questions in this column. Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, was very disturbed by the state winner-take-all rule, which he considered one of the central flaws of the Electoral College as it took shape in the early 19th century. The most popular alternative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). 4. It can be fixed. Polls from FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast have predicted Clinton receiving a majority popular vote of 49.7 percent, with Trump behind at 43.3 percent. In May, the Washington State Supreme Courtuphelda state election law that said an elector who did not vote for the candidate he pledged to support could be fined up to $1,000 in civil penalties. They disagreed so strongly that the final system wasnt adopted until the last minute, thrown together by a few delegates in a side room. Warren says she wants to get rid of the Electoral College, and vote for president using a national popular vote. Places like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Despite what you may have learned in school, it was not the product of careful design by brilliant men. Its no wonder the candidates fixate on issues that matter to specific groups of voters in swing states, like fracking in Pennsylvania This is my 13th visit. or prescription drug benefits in Florida. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., if the Electoral College of the United States was abolished, the collapse of the already weakened two-party political system would be fast tracked; resulting in multiplication of splinter parties. In addition to the NPVIC discussed above, there are two variations on this theme that could reduce the odds that someone could win the presidency without winning the national popular vote. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power - & we cant let that happen. Instead, theyre voting for their states representatives in the Electoral College, who will then vote for the president. I used to like the idea of the Popular Vote, but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the U.S.A. Gregg says that change would radicalize politics. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. As we can see from questions posed in two respectable polls, Pew and Gallup, in spite of the fact that majorities support change it is Democrats who support it and Republicans who oppose it. We need to think hard, and quickly, about how to reform three aspects of the presidential nomination process: the debates, the primary elections and the conventions. Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. The great problems with our presidential selection system today stem from the haphazard way we choose the two major party presidential candidates. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Electoral College. Today that system is threatened by a proposal called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or. Only Rutherford Hayes, with a 3% difference, won the electoral college despite being in the minority. Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center This toolkit provides guidance and resources to those associated with community colleges who are interested in either creating a pathway program to law school or enhancing an existing program. Democracy is, at its core, about fair, equal representation one person, one vote. Mr. Wegman argues that reforming the Electoral College isnt a partisan issue its a fairness issue. It would stop the requirement to redistribute the electoral votes. The three-fifths clause became irrelevant with the end of slavery (thankfully! This is because the president is not . After a long battle in Florida Bush won the state narrowly, giving him an Electoral College victory of 271 to 266 over Al Gore. In fact, lets tally up all the votes cast for president between 1932 and 2008. As the Washington Post has shown, the four most populous states, California, Texas, Florida and New York are all dramatically underrepresented in todays Electoral College. And even when that doesn't happen, Wegman sees another problem with the . Electoral vote totals will equal 538. Thrown together at the last minute by the countrys founders, it almost immediately stopped functioning as they thought it would. What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration? 3. This imbalance is primarily a 21st century phenomenon and it could, of course, change in the years to come as some states grow and other states shrink in population. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/learning/is-the-electoral-college-a-problem-does-it-need-to-be-fixed.html. 7. It is true that the Electoral College no longer serves its original purposes, and that it creates a grave risk that a candidate not favored by a majority of the people will, from time to time, be elected president. The Electoral College consists of an elector selection, a group of people who will meet and vote for President and Vice President based on the results of their states election. While people were moving to the coasts, especially California, the Electoral College stayed the same. But reforming the Electoral College does not rank high among our national problems. We will focus on elections in the 20th and 21st centuries. Every vote matters, commented Senator Elizabet Warren (D-Mass) in an early campaign stop in Mississippi in 2019, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.. Do you support this movement? In a polarized political environment, such an institutional structure remains entrenched. When enough states join in this interstate compact, itll mean that the popular-vote winner will always become president. It's another way the system ensures it's perpetuity. Not one was a first-rank president, but their selection did not seriously injure the democratic character of our system. 2? So far, 15 states plus the District of Columbia have joined in for a total of 196 electoral votes, just 74 more. Abolishing the Electoral College seems to be the next logical step in that process. It's just not clear how you could do that.". Despite political challenges to reforming the manner in which the United States selects its president, there is danger in maintaining the status quo. .just the large States - the Cities would end up running the Country. The current system for electing a U.S. president traces back to 1787. Adding even more candidates into this discussion without the protections of this structure could create circumstances where someone with less than 35% of the vote could potentially win a four-year term. They want the option to select a president based on who gets the most votes nationally. What happens if a candidate with electoral votes dies or becomes Without the Electoral College, big states like California and New York would dominate elections. Its primary function is to malapportion political power, and it does so indeed, has always done so with strikingly awful. There are currently 538 electors up for grabs in an election, which means a majority of 270 is necessary to elect the President. Polls from FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast have predicted. There is a trigger for NPV to go into effect, and we are creeping ever closer toward it.10 When enough states have entered the compact to reach a majority of the electoral votes270 out of 538the compact will then kick in. This means that every election, 80 percent of American voters, roughly 100 million people, get ignored. The Electoral College is outlined in Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. And finally, Myth 3: The Electoral College protects small states. The current structure limits Americans from pushing in this direction even though candidates tend to visit swing states more often. Presidential electors are not more qualified than other citizens to determine who should head the government. Your membership has expired - last chance for uninterrupted access to free CLE and other benefits. Popular vote is a direct vote.
Us Purchases Alaska World Leader Or Bully,
Chicago Police Helmet,
Bungalows For Sale In Wyre Forest,
Articles W