In 1876, Hayes received 47.95% of the national popular vote, in 1888, Harrison received 47.82% of the national popular vote, and in 2000, Bush received 48.56% of the national popular vote (Jost, Giroux 993). These three presidents have something in common. All three of these presidents won the presidential election without as much as gaining the plurality of the national popular vote. This is the biggest issue concerning how the United States of America elects the office of President through the Electoral College. The creation of the Electoral College worked well in the time when society was more Agrarian, because voters in those times may not have much knowledge of national politics. Now, the Electoral College is an Archaic visage of the past
…show more content…
Most states are winner take all states. This makes the chances for third parties gaining traction very low, thus making it difficult for third parties to gain national recognition. Third parties also create problems for the electoral college, in many instances preventing candidates, that otherwise have a plurality, from winning certain states and winning the electoral college in turn. This was seen in 2000 when presidential candidate Ralph Nader, whose policies were in line with Al Gore’s took many votes from Gore, preventing him from winning Florida. These issues with third parties and the electoral college then create a spiral where these parties cannot win because the votes needed are too high, and when a third party candidate has potential, people are discouraged from voting for the candidate because it may allow an unfavorable candidate to win. The Proportional Electoral System solves the first issue of difficulty for third parties. Now that the number of votes needed to gain an electoral vote have gone down to a smaller share of the vote, such as at least 1 percent of the vote in California, this makes the path to gaining support much easier. If the proportional electoral system were applied to every election since 1960, the biggest third party candidate won by at least 1 electoral vote (Jost, Giroux 984). But the Proportional Electoral System fails in preventing third parties from creating problems for the other two major candidates. Alternatively, in almost every election since 1960 if the proportional electoral system were applied, no candidate would have gained enough electoral votes to get 270 (Jost, Giroux 984). This problem would reverse a third party’s ability to gain traction since they would still appear to preventing any definitive victory. Heale pointed out this problem that a proportional electoral system would possibly create more election deadlocks (Heale 6). This is where an instant
Most states are winner take all states. This makes the chances for third parties gaining traction very low, thus making it difficult for third parties to gain national recognition. Third parties also create problems for the electoral college, in many instances preventing candidates, that otherwise have a plurality, from winning certain states and winning the electoral college in turn. This was seen in 2000 when presidential candidate Ralph Nader, whose policies were in line with Al Gore’s took many votes from Gore, preventing him from winning Florida. These issues with third parties and the electoral college then create a spiral where these parties cannot win because the votes needed are too high, and when a third party candidate has potential, people are discouraged from voting for the candidate because it may allow an unfavorable candidate to win. The Proportional Electoral System solves the first issue of difficulty for third parties. Now that the number of votes needed to gain an electoral vote have gone down to a smaller share of the vote, such as at least 1 percent of the vote in California, this makes the path to gaining support much easier. If the proportional electoral system were applied to every election since 1960, the biggest third party candidate won by at least 1 electoral vote (Jost, Giroux 984). But the Proportional Electoral System fails in preventing third parties from creating problems for the other two major candidates. Alternatively, in almost every election since 1960 if the proportional electoral system were applied, no candidate would have gained enough electoral votes to get 270 (Jost, Giroux 984). This problem would reverse a third party’s ability to gain traction since they would still appear to preventing any definitive victory. Heale pointed out this problem that a proportional electoral system would possibly create more election deadlocks (Heale 6). This is where an instant