Only 36.4 percent of voters turned out during the 2014 elections, the lowest overall in seventy years. In 507 B.C. , Cleisthenes, the Athenian leader, introduced a new system of reforms consisting of three groups: the governing body, council of representatives, and the popular courts (History Channel). Greece was the beginning of voting and democracy. In the early 1600’s, as American settlements were later set up in Jamestown, these men started off by conducting an election (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation). As time progressed, these methods and processes tended to evolve, but are not showing much of an improvement nowadays. In a society of constant innovation, the whole process of voting should not be left aside to become obsolete. The voting
…show more content…
The 2000 presidential election is a great example. In the election, Al Gore took victory over George Bush by 500,000 votes. The game changer in this situation was the twenty-five electoral votes Florida attained. Since Bush obtained a small majority of Florida voters over Gore, he took the twenty-five electoral votes. In turn, Democrat Al Gore went from being the popular vote victor to the election loser. Overall, although Gore won more popular votes, Bush obtained more electoral votes. Regarding the Electoral College, Plutzer mentions how “Under the current system, when a candidate wins a landslide in California or Texas, it does not matter if we miss 100,000 votes. The outcome is unchanged. But if we went to a national popular vote, every vote would be important.” According to US history, the closest the country has ever come to abolishing the system was in the 91st Congress (FairVote). “Emanuel Celler, chairman of the US House of Reps. Judiciary Committee, brought forth Joint Resolution 681. It was a new amendment to the Constitution that would have ended the Electoral College” (Riscalla). After tons of argument and controversy, it died with the end of the 91st Congress. With an amended system of voting, there would be more political competition and thus, greater citizen interest and civic …show more content…
Each state in America has a number of electors equal to the amount of senators and representatives who are currently in Congress. In each state, the popular vote is used to nominate electors. The winning candidate is decided if he or she accumulates 270 majority votes in the Electoral College (Riscalla). If not, the House of Representatives and Senate make the decisions. Although this is how it works, the popular vote is not a true valid method in determining an election’s outcome. It has a high tendency of disenfranchising voters and leading the candidate with a lesser amount of popular votes to victory (NY Times). It really does not matter the amount of people who actually vote, because this system actually removes any bit of advantage a political party might have over encouraging higher levels of voter turnout. Candidates attempt in maximizing electoral votes rather than working for the national popular vote (Penn State). If things were done differently, there would be a stronger desire for people to vote and increase turnout in
The 2000 presidential election is a great example. In the election, Al Gore took victory over George Bush by 500,000 votes. The game changer in this situation was the twenty-five electoral votes Florida attained. Since Bush obtained a small majority of Florida voters over Gore, he took the twenty-five electoral votes. In turn, Democrat Al Gore went from being the popular vote victor to the election loser. Overall, although Gore won more popular votes, Bush obtained more electoral votes. Regarding the Electoral College, Plutzer mentions how “Under the current system, when a candidate wins a landslide in California or Texas, it does not matter if we miss 100,000 votes. The outcome is unchanged. But if we went to a national popular vote, every vote would be important.” According to US history, the closest the country has ever come to abolishing the system was in the 91st Congress (FairVote). “Emanuel Celler, chairman of the US House of Reps. Judiciary Committee, brought forth Joint Resolution 681. It was a new amendment to the Constitution that would have ended the Electoral College” (Riscalla). After tons of argument and controversy, it died with the end of the 91st Congress. With an amended system of voting, there would be more political competition and thus, greater citizen interest and civic …show more content…
Each state in America has a number of electors equal to the amount of senators and representatives who are currently in Congress. In each state, the popular vote is used to nominate electors. The winning candidate is decided if he or she accumulates 270 majority votes in the Electoral College (Riscalla). If not, the House of Representatives and Senate make the decisions. Although this is how it works, the popular vote is not a true valid method in determining an election’s outcome. It has a high tendency of disenfranchising voters and leading the candidate with a lesser amount of popular votes to victory (NY Times). It really does not matter the amount of people who actually vote, because this system actually removes any bit of advantage a political party might have over encouraging higher levels of voter turnout. Candidates attempt in maximizing electoral votes rather than working for the national popular vote (Penn State). If things were done differently, there would be a stronger desire for people to vote and increase turnout in