“The end is near,” they say. Not the end of the world like many will most likely interpret or even wish, rather the end of the prolonged 2016 US election, in which feels like the end of the world for us Americans after repeatedly getting fed with empty promises throughout the campaign season. Out of 318.9 million people living in the US (according to the United States Census Bureau), even having a very tiny fraction of other individuals eligible to take over the US presidential position according to the law of probability, we came down to two candidates notorious for their exceptionally terrible reputation. We have Hillary Clinton representing the Democratic Party infamous for her shady email controversy, which allegedly lead to numerous of
…show more content…
The two major candidates does not completely make up 100% of the whole nation’s vote. A fraction of it is for the third party candidates, but it will still go to one of the two major candidates. In addition, as included, the Electoral College elects the next president even if that individual failed to win the popular vote. Thus, as was also stated, makes an illusion of democracy. For instance, probably the most famous case regarding Electoral College bias was the 2000 election between former President George W. Bush and Al Gore, in which even the Supreme Court got involved. The people chose Al Gore but the Electoral College still elected GWH. Al Gore demanded for a manual recounting of votes but the Supreme Court declared such action unconstitutional (PBS.org). Sounds fishy, is it not? It seems like the staffs of the government schemed this altogether, and that is why we have to stop this shady …show more content…
As said before, the Electoral College is not a fair entity nor idea. Why do we vote anyway if a portion of the government still has the last call? For instance, other than the 2000 election, there’s also the 1876 election, in which the Electoral College’s bias won the election. There were 247,448 more people who voted for Samuel J. Tilden, but his 184 Electoral College vote, even only short by one vote, is still less than Rutherford B. Hayes’ (PBS.org). There are not many occasions in which the Electoral College 's winner wins the popular vote. It does not matter! It still
The two major candidates does not completely make up 100% of the whole nation’s vote. A fraction of it is for the third party candidates, but it will still go to one of the two major candidates. In addition, as included, the Electoral College elects the next president even if that individual failed to win the popular vote. Thus, as was also stated, makes an illusion of democracy. For instance, probably the most famous case regarding Electoral College bias was the 2000 election between former President George W. Bush and Al Gore, in which even the Supreme Court got involved. The people chose Al Gore but the Electoral College still elected GWH. Al Gore demanded for a manual recounting of votes but the Supreme Court declared such action unconstitutional (PBS.org). Sounds fishy, is it not? It seems like the staffs of the government schemed this altogether, and that is why we have to stop this shady …show more content…
As said before, the Electoral College is not a fair entity nor idea. Why do we vote anyway if a portion of the government still has the last call? For instance, other than the 2000 election, there’s also the 1876 election, in which the Electoral College’s bias won the election. There were 247,448 more people who voted for Samuel J. Tilden, but his 184 Electoral College vote, even only short by one vote, is still less than Rutherford B. Hayes’ (PBS.org). There are not many occasions in which the Electoral College 's winner wins the popular vote. It does not matter! It still