If I were to choose to establish a twenty-eighth amendment, it would be the removal of the
Electoral College. The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote. Each state is given a specific number of electors based on the number of its
United States representatives and senators. This allows for over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states, while the winner-takes-all format followed by most states could result in a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election.
This has occurred on various occasions. If we wish to advance as a nation, the Electoral
College must be …show more content…
Given that it does not often occur, it is not looked at as a relevant issue to argue. Due to the structure of the Electoral College, the strategy used by candidates dictates focusing campaign efforts on states with higher Electoral College votes. Citizenry of states with lower Electoral College votes may be overlooked or neglected. Presidential candidates tend to focus primarily on the larger states such as California, Texas and Florida, disregarding the smaller states because they are unnecessary to win the election. This is direct contradiction to it’s original goal which is to give everyone an equal chance to be recognized in the national vote. Our country is supposed to be a symbol of democracy, but to this day, American elections are not truly democratic for there are no direct Presidential elections. Our President is not elected by the people, but by 538 electors who can legally vote for whomever they choose. Should the Electoral College be replaced with the National Popular Vote system?
The National Popular Vote system will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most votes. This amendment will ensure that every vote in every
Electoral College. The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote. Each state is given a specific number of electors based on the number of its
United States representatives and senators. This allows for over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states, while the winner-takes-all format followed by most states could result in a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election.
This has occurred on various occasions. If we wish to advance as a nation, the Electoral
College must be …show more content…
Given that it does not often occur, it is not looked at as a relevant issue to argue. Due to the structure of the Electoral College, the strategy used by candidates dictates focusing campaign efforts on states with higher Electoral College votes. Citizenry of states with lower Electoral College votes may be overlooked or neglected. Presidential candidates tend to focus primarily on the larger states such as California, Texas and Florida, disregarding the smaller states because they are unnecessary to win the election. This is direct contradiction to it’s original goal which is to give everyone an equal chance to be recognized in the national vote. Our country is supposed to be a symbol of democracy, but to this day, American elections are not truly democratic for there are no direct Presidential elections. Our President is not elected by the people, but by 538 electors who can legally vote for whomever they choose. Should the Electoral College be replaced with the National Popular Vote system?
The National Popular Vote system will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most votes. This amendment will ensure that every vote in every