The Electoral College is a flawed system in which decides America’s presidential fate. According to Google, the Electoral College “consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.” In many elections in the past, Presidential candidates who did not win a majority of the popular vote, or even a plurality, were elected president because of the electoral college. Take Bush vs. Al Gore for example. Al Gore won more popular vote than Bush, but Bush was elected. There are mostly risks of “faithless Electors,” failure to accurately reflect the nation’s popular will, the fact that the Electoral College only aims for strongholds, and tries to avoid run-off elections. First and foremost, there are those
…show more content…
The distribution of Electoral votes over-represents citizens in rural states. Winner-take-all mechanisms are also hard for the third party to deal with. Taking our recent 2016 Presidential Elections, Hillary had been ahead of President Elect Donald Trump in the citizen’s votes, but the Electoral College had the majority vote for the latter. This gives an unfair advantage to the unwanted party that is favored by the Electoral College, basically throwing human voting rights out the window. If the popular vote candidate has less Electoral votes, they are highly likely to …show more content…
“The Electoral College avoids the problems of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast,” Says Judge Richard A. Posner. He also states that “There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariable produces a clear winner. . . .” Even if there is a majority vote, the Electoral College can cast it off, ignoring human voting rights. If the Electoral College were to avoid being shut down, an intense system change would need to be brought
The distribution of Electoral votes over-represents citizens in rural states. Winner-take-all mechanisms are also hard for the third party to deal with. Taking our recent 2016 Presidential Elections, Hillary had been ahead of President Elect Donald Trump in the citizen’s votes, but the Electoral College had the majority vote for the latter. This gives an unfair advantage to the unwanted party that is favored by the Electoral College, basically throwing human voting rights out the window. If the popular vote candidate has less Electoral votes, they are highly likely to …show more content…
“The Electoral College avoids the problems of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast,” Says Judge Richard A. Posner. He also states that “There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariable produces a clear winner. . . .” Even if there is a majority vote, the Electoral College can cast it off, ignoring human voting rights. If the Electoral College were to avoid being shut down, an intense system change would need to be brought