Do You Want to Change the Election System?
The Electoral College may be the last vestige of representative democracy left in the US. The Electoral College was originally established by the Constitution to safeguard against a single person, or a small minority, having too much power in government, and to prevent a foreign nation from using its “possessing” power to dominate the US.
However, the Framers did not intend for the popular vote to determine the next president of the US. The electors are selected by each state based on their qualifications to hold office, and no candidate can receive more than the required number of votes in any state.
Another important aspect of this system is the fact that it is up to the House of Representatives to choose from among all of the candidates. If no one gets a majority, the House then chooses the person who received the most popular votes. The process is the same for each state, except in some cases where the candidate does not win a majority, they would go to the House of Representatives again. In those instances the election ends with a tie, but neither candidate receives a majority.
Although many have argued against the idea that the popular vote is the only way to select a President, many political pundits and analysts believe otherwise. Many argue that it’s a legitimate method of selecting the president. Others believe that it’s a way of giving large states, like California and New York, an unfair advantage in selecting the first president of the US.
Regardless, of which side you believe, there is still a lot to consider when debating the election system. What many people don’t realize is that the electorates do have a say in who the President of the US will be. They can decide to vote their conscience, or they can choose the candidate who they think will best represent them, or the country, in Washington, D.C.
A vote cast by a person for president is just that – a popular vote. No matter which candidate won that vote, the election will be considered a victory by the voters who cast it. There is no way to tell who that particular person would have voted for if he or she were not allowed to cast that vote. In most cases, though, the voters that are allowed to cast these votes are older, whiter, wealthier, and more powerful than those who are not allowed to.
The problem comes when a state, such as California or New York, has a smaller percentage of the population because of their smaller population, but holds a larger proportion of the popular vote than other states. Because they have more people, they get more votes than smaller states that have less people. In such cases, it is possible for them to dominate the rest of the country.
This is what the Electoral College is designed to prevent. It is the system used to ensure that an honest, non-corrupt election takes place in the US. Unfortunately, this system also gives large populations an unfair advantage in the selection of the most qualified candidate to lead the country. That is why many, including former presidential candidate Ron Paul, argue that the system needs to be changed in order to protect the national interest.
Many of the arguments against changing the system use numbers and statistics in their arguments. There is a simple reason for this. Numbers and statistics only account for votes that were cast at the polls, but that doesn’t take into account what happens when those votes get into the counting room. The results can vary, depending on how each state’s election laws treat and count these votes.
The state’s laws on how votes are counted can also differ from one state to another. The rules can vary based on whether the votes are counted at the state level or under the auspices of the United States Congress. So, while some states, like California and New York, can easily manipulate the system by changing the rules to keep their vote count higher, others might have to rely on the federal government for their vote count.
As you can see, changing the rules so that each state had the same percentage of the popular vote would not guarantee a fair election. It would depend on which state chose to change the rules in question, and the number of people in that state.