All political views aside, Clinton should have won the 2016 election, since she won the popular vote. The Trump versus Clinton election is the most recent one, the one where Clinton won 2,865,075 more popular votes than Trump. Just about every American knows that the reason Trump won the election is the electoral college, which is something that we honestly shouldn’t use anymore. Today, we live in a well-informed society, where almost everyone can reasonably form their own political by virtue of everyday resources like the media. Trying to figure out why a president should lose the presidency if they win the people’s vote is genuinely bewildering. After all. electoral votes are based on population and a census is done every ten years for states
…show more content…
His first statement was, “The electoral college is an abomination: an antidemocratic relic of the unconscionable compromises made during America’s founding that should never have been allowed to linger into the 21st century.” Backing up his claim, he used a quote from California Senator Barbra Boxer. She said, “The electoral college is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.” Although Nichols used a quote from a liberal senator, Senator Boxer was right. As a robust example, Nichols used the state of Michigan when he said, “Trump led Clinton by less than 11,000 votes out of 4.8 million cast, and yet he received all 16 of the state’s electoral votes.” He also argues that the votes of people in undersized states are worth more than those of larger states by saying, “The real issue arises from the fact that the current system overrepresents small states in a way that can help popular-vote losers become electoral college winners.” Elaborating on this, he said that a Wyoming elector speaks for about 58,000 voters but a California elector speaks for about 150,000 voters. Those numbers are not equal, but both are worth one electoral …show more content…
His claim is, “The electoral college isn’t about candidates campaigning in small states. It is about people living in small states having any say at all in the election of a president.” Elaborating on this, he said a red-blue map clears this up, because it shows how the votes of people in well-populated states would decide the presidency without it. He said, “a handful of states could elect a president and the rest of the country would have nothing to say about it.” Although Lowenstein does bring up an important view, he seems to be more concerned about people in insignificant states having a say rather than the people of America having a say as a whole.There is no justification for why voters in puny states should not have more of a say in who becomes the president of the United States than those in larger
His first statement was, “The electoral college is an abomination: an antidemocratic relic of the unconscionable compromises made during America’s founding that should never have been allowed to linger into the 21st century.” Backing up his claim, he used a quote from California Senator Barbra Boxer. She said, “The electoral college is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.” Although Nichols used a quote from a liberal senator, Senator Boxer was right. As a robust example, Nichols used the state of Michigan when he said, “Trump led Clinton by less than 11,000 votes out of 4.8 million cast, and yet he received all 16 of the state’s electoral votes.” He also argues that the votes of people in undersized states are worth more than those of larger states by saying, “The real issue arises from the fact that the current system overrepresents small states in a way that can help popular-vote losers become electoral college winners.” Elaborating on this, he said that a Wyoming elector speaks for about 58,000 voters but a California elector speaks for about 150,000 voters. Those numbers are not equal, but both are worth one electoral …show more content…
His claim is, “The electoral college isn’t about candidates campaigning in small states. It is about people living in small states having any say at all in the election of a president.” Elaborating on this, he said a red-blue map clears this up, because it shows how the votes of people in well-populated states would decide the presidency without it. He said, “a handful of states could elect a president and the rest of the country would have nothing to say about it.” Although Lowenstein does bring up an important view, he seems to be more concerned about people in insignificant states having a say rather than the people of America having a say as a whole.There is no justification for why voters in puny states should not have more of a say in who becomes the president of the United States than those in larger