The United States of America praises their democratic system, but how democratic is it really? There is much controversy over whether the system in which the president is elected is an honest democratic policy or an unfair operation. This conflict arises due to the many faults in the Electoral College as it causes certain votes to have little to no affect on the outcome. Decisions to abolish the system are greatly influenced by an alternative process known as the National Popular Vote. With the flaws in the Electoral College and a proposed solution; next, an obvious conclusion can be made. The Electoral College limits the value of certain votes that are beyond the swing states, so it should be abolished and replaced with the National Popular
…show more content…
As this alternative considers the votes of all persons voting, it elects whichever candidate has the most votes overall. This system clearly elucidates any misconstruction of its democratic status, unlike the Electoral College, which fails to do so. The Popular Vote would eradicate this trivial standpoint that most states hold and evolve it into that of equal ability as these “swing” states have. One could also describe this change as a leveling of the playing field. Washington Post (2013) predicts, “This system applied nationally would give Republicans a built-in advantage because it would dilute the influence of highly concentrated urban voters, who tend to vote Democratic in large numbers.” The National Popular vote would enforce equality among parties opposed to the separation and controversy that the Electoral College encourages. This hostility among those with conflicting political affiliation has a lot to do with the desperosity of each party to have states lean towards their side. Both republicans and democrats are thirsty to obtain electoral votes that support their beliefs. This drive to grow their party would no longer be directed at states as a whole, but on individuals themselves. This arrangement also allows the majority of people to choose, opposed to the current system’s neglect of the smaller less populated states. USA TODAY (2016) …show more content…
The Electoral College is undemocratic due to both its restriction and limitations on a large portion of voters. Petrie (2016) agrees, “One reason this system needs to go is because it has run against the democratic will of the country on occasion” (p. 1). The focus of the United States has been the practice of democracy since it was established. This makes for an even more shocking realization of the inequal opportune of which the Electoral College allows. Provided that all new ideas have skeptics, some argue it goes completely beyond the intent for which it was made. Turley (2012) states, “The greatest irony of the Electoral College is that it does precisely the opposite of what the Framers intended: Rather than encouraging presidential candidates to take small states seriously, it results in turning most states into near total irrelevancies” (p. 2). The Electoral College; certainly, encourages the focus on the Swing States, the states that lean either left or right during elections. The country should be focused on enacting a process of election that includes all areas of the nation, yet they lean towards one that deviates very far from democracy. Kempthorne (2015) says, “A system whereby the presidential election turns on the outcome in a dozen states should not be maintained” (p. 1).
As this alternative considers the votes of all persons voting, it elects whichever candidate has the most votes overall. This system clearly elucidates any misconstruction of its democratic status, unlike the Electoral College, which fails to do so. The Popular Vote would eradicate this trivial standpoint that most states hold and evolve it into that of equal ability as these “swing” states have. One could also describe this change as a leveling of the playing field. Washington Post (2013) predicts, “This system applied nationally would give Republicans a built-in advantage because it would dilute the influence of highly concentrated urban voters, who tend to vote Democratic in large numbers.” The National Popular vote would enforce equality among parties opposed to the separation and controversy that the Electoral College encourages. This hostility among those with conflicting political affiliation has a lot to do with the desperosity of each party to have states lean towards their side. Both republicans and democrats are thirsty to obtain electoral votes that support their beliefs. This drive to grow their party would no longer be directed at states as a whole, but on individuals themselves. This arrangement also allows the majority of people to choose, opposed to the current system’s neglect of the smaller less populated states. USA TODAY (2016) …show more content…
The Electoral College is undemocratic due to both its restriction and limitations on a large portion of voters. Petrie (2016) agrees, “One reason this system needs to go is because it has run against the democratic will of the country on occasion” (p. 1). The focus of the United States has been the practice of democracy since it was established. This makes for an even more shocking realization of the inequal opportune of which the Electoral College allows. Provided that all new ideas have skeptics, some argue it goes completely beyond the intent for which it was made. Turley (2012) states, “The greatest irony of the Electoral College is that it does precisely the opposite of what the Framers intended: Rather than encouraging presidential candidates to take small states seriously, it results in turning most states into near total irrelevancies” (p. 2). The Electoral College; certainly, encourages the focus on the Swing States, the states that lean either left or right during elections. The country should be focused on enacting a process of election that includes all areas of the nation, yet they lean towards one that deviates very far from democracy. Kempthorne (2015) says, “A system whereby the presidential election turns on the outcome in a dozen states should not be maintained” (p. 1).