Since the creation of the United States of America, the Electoral College has been the decider of who becomes the next president. Each state, as well as the District of Columbia, is assigned a certain number of electors based on population and two senators, adding up to 538 for the nation. When one votes at a polling station, they are not directly voting for the president. Instead, they are voting for a particular elector that will then vote for the president. Whichever candidate wins the majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. Most of the time, electors cast their vote for the person who wins the popular vote in their state, but this is not always the case. This is no law that forces the electors to follow this; consequently some
…show more content…
For example, Wyoming gets the equivalence of 5.1 electors per million while California only gets 1.4 (National Archives and Records Administration). This means a single vote in Wyoming is worth over three times more than a Californian one, which gives a candidate the ability to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. This is mostly due to the two senatorial votes that each state is given. Those 2 votes account for over half of the states voting power while it is only around 4 percent of California’s. This creates an unequal say among people of different states. This could also lead to a victory in popular vote that also results as an electoral vote loss. In a country founded off of freedom, equality, and fair representation in the Government for all citizens, this system is undoubtedly …show more content…
Federalist paper 10 states the fear and damage that political factions can cause (Madison). Since the candidates fight over each state that only votes for one party, the individual votes for third-parties are considered wasted. Thus, citizens think that they can only vote for a republican or democrat nominee. The Electoral College forces the U.S. into two parties which greatly limits the variety for president. The country has been driven to choose between far left and far right candidates with no chance of choosing a president who is in the middle of the political spectrum. The members of these two parties know this and would be hostile to a change in the electing system. There is no need to abolish the Electoral College completely; it only needs revision. Instead of grouping the electors of each state together in a “winner take all” situation, assign each electoral vote to equally sized districts of a state. Each voting district should have the same population in order to keep it congruent with the popular vote. This will fix the problem of unequal spending and visits to areas, as each area is worth the same. This way every citizens’ vote is equal, as the founding fathers intended rights in the country to
For example, Wyoming gets the equivalence of 5.1 electors per million while California only gets 1.4 (National Archives and Records Administration). This means a single vote in Wyoming is worth over three times more than a Californian one, which gives a candidate the ability to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. This is mostly due to the two senatorial votes that each state is given. Those 2 votes account for over half of the states voting power while it is only around 4 percent of California’s. This creates an unequal say among people of different states. This could also lead to a victory in popular vote that also results as an electoral vote loss. In a country founded off of freedom, equality, and fair representation in the Government for all citizens, this system is undoubtedly …show more content…
Federalist paper 10 states the fear and damage that political factions can cause (Madison). Since the candidates fight over each state that only votes for one party, the individual votes for third-parties are considered wasted. Thus, citizens think that they can only vote for a republican or democrat nominee. The Electoral College forces the U.S. into two parties which greatly limits the variety for president. The country has been driven to choose between far left and far right candidates with no chance of choosing a president who is in the middle of the political spectrum. The members of these two parties know this and would be hostile to a change in the electing system. There is no need to abolish the Electoral College completely; it only needs revision. Instead of grouping the electors of each state together in a “winner take all” situation, assign each electoral vote to equally sized districts of a state. Each voting district should have the same population in order to keep it congruent with the popular vote. This will fix the problem of unequal spending and visits to areas, as each area is worth the same. This way every citizens’ vote is equal, as the founding fathers intended rights in the country to