So you know that whole go out and elect the president thing? Well, it's not really that simple. The framers designed the Electoral College, which today is made up of 538 electors who officially elect the president. The process is a bit complicated, but you can take a look at a great explanation here (or a funny one here or, if you're feeling old school you can watch the schoolhouse rock version). There has been a debate growing since the Constitution was written in 1787 about whether the electoral college is the best way to elect a president. The criticism of the electoral college became more pronounced after the controversial election of 2000, which ended in a Supreme Court decision and George W. Bush's first victory (although Al Gore won the popular vote). A great video describing why many believe the electoral college is unfair and should be replaced by the popular vote selecting the president can be seen here. A recent poll found that nearly 75% of Americans believed that the electoral college should be removed and efforts are being made to try to amend the constitution to change or remove it. However there are many practical reasons why the electoral college still works well as explained in chapter 5 of this video debate titled "In Defense of the Electoral College", not to mentions the fears of faction in a direct democracy described by James Madison in Federalist #10. So now its up to you. How should we elect our presidents? Should we keep the electoral college or should we replace it with the popular vote?
On one hand, it's a really nice fairytale idea that the electing process should be totally democratic and entirely based on the popular vote, aka the electoral college should scrapped. However I believe a fairytale is as far as it goes and even more so, I think it would be a huge mistake. According to the video, one reason that people oppose the electoral college is out of an abstract sense that mathematically if someone wins the popular vote, he or she should win the presidency. But that's not how we do it: what one should care about is that the person who is elected should have a substantial base of the popular vote, that's all. He need not have the majority.
ReplyDeleteI watched the video online and there were two defenses of the electoral college mentioned that really made sense to me. The first is that the electoral college make majorities that wouldn't exist in the popular vote and amplify majorities that would be very close. For example, most people believe that Clinton had the majority of the popular vote, however he didn't even come close to a majority; but what he did have was the electoral vote. Another reason mentioned in the video that I very much agree with is that if a president, after his election, is found to be part of a huge scandal and was elected only by popular vote, we'd have a huge issue. How would we deal with it? Common man alone elected him? Now what? This is another reason why the electoral college is crucial. Since we elect our electors, we trust that they are honorable people. And therefore, in an unfortunate case as mentioned above we trust them to choose another President well qualified for the position. We're not afraid that they'll form a coup detat.
So, I too believe that the electoral college system of electing the President is necessary and without it, our country could suffer huge problems. And now when I think about it even more, we can't trust the average American. It is the average American who can form a coup and scheme. People are selfish, power-hungry, cruel...we need people above- electors- to keep the populous in check and assure that the person elected was in fact the right person to have been elected. This isn't to say that the electoral college will sometimes to make a mistake, however up until now, the system has worked and we've had more good Presidents than bad ones. We need the electoral college!
When it comes to the voting process, of course voters want to feel that their voice counts. So who wouldn’t want to believe in the fantasy of the voting process actually being controlled by our votes? However, I agree with Pamela-- it is a really nice fairytale idea to have the President be a result of our votes, but it would be a huge mistake to have the process work that way. If the people were allowed to have all of the power, things would never get done, and too many emotions would be placed within the decision. We need people whose pure focus is on this type of thing, people who can make an educated decision, and make sure it isn’t just a “popularity contest” and that emotions are separate from actions. But at the same time, I do feel that it is important that the Electoral College does take our votes into consideration when making a decision because after all, the President is a representation of the people’s voice.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this blog post, I feel very torn and indecisive as to who should have the most influence in deciding the president for the following term.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I believe that every vote counts- therefore the people should be the ones to decide who governs over them, just like they do with local elections.
but on the other hand, we are picking these public officials to work closely with the president. Therefore we are trusting our Senators and House Representatives to represent the people and the public on controversial issues.
In conclusion, I think that as the people we have a right to vote and decide who governs over us, therefore when it comes to Senators and House Representatives the citizens vote should make the most impact, however when it comes to the president, i trust the local officials that I elected to make a educated and informed decision about the man/woman they will have to work with for the next 4-8 years.
I think Sarit had the right idea when she said "we are trusting our Senators and House Reps to represent the people and the public on controversial issues". Our votes do count, just not on the larger scheme. It is my understanding that the system was built to create efficiency and representation. Therefore, while our singular votes do not count on a national level, they do count in a district level. Therefore, it is just as important to vote for your senator and congressman as it is to vote for the president. Unfortunately, most people don't even know who their congressman or senator is.
ReplyDeleteI think as Americans we must keep in mind that our country is extremely large and populated and for every specific vote to count is idealistic yet unrealistic. Instead of worrying about your vote for the president, we should be starting lower down with congressman and senators and mayors etc. and then use the system as it was made to be and work our vote to the top.
We can control our representation and therefore should take advantage of that ability to use in the grander scheme of things.
Leah Avner
Although the Electoral College is probably the most efficient way to elect a president, the fact that 75 percent of Americans oppose the system is not something to be taken lightly. People in this country feel like their vote doesn’t count so they don’t make an effort to voice their opinion on Election Day. This is understandable considering the various videos posted about how the Electoral College works. For example, the republican living in a major democratic state like California would not bother voting for his candidate since the facts clearly state that he will be out voted anyways. All the republicans in California wouldn’t even gain one electoral vote towards their candidate for their collective effort. As a result a significantly lower number of votes are submitted than the number of capable voters in the U.S. This does not seem like the democratic dream. If the election process would be changed to the popular vote as opposed to the electoral vote then more people would probably take an active role in the election, creating a more democratic vote.
ReplyDeleteI agree for the most part that the Electoral College should be abolished. I thought that the video about the unfairness that is created because of the Electoral College really brought up extremely valid points. I was especially appalled by the idea that based on what state you live in, your vote could count less than someone living in a larger state. The Electoral College doesn’t necessarily allow the popular vote the vote that is victorious. Besides all the points brought up in the video, I believe that the Electoral College depresses voter turnout. Why would I show up to vote when an appointed official is really casting my vote for me? However, the Electoral College helps control the stability of America politically with its two part system. Overall, I think the system that was originally made to solve problems is creating modern day problems that are not simple to solve.
ReplyDeleteWe're privileged that we live in a democratic country, where each person has the right to vote. That being said, it is impossible for the system to be a perfect one. We have the opportunity to vote as individuals, thereby contributing to the country's popular vote, but for reasons like efficiency, we must rely on the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance it appears as though the citizens really don't have rights. But I agree with the argument above, which is that the electoral college is comprised of individuals that we've voted into office. Therefore, we should have faith in their decision making abilities when voting for President.
Additionally, while it is important that individuals feel that they are part of a greater cause, which is a national election, it's equally if not more important for a state to feel like it is directly contributing to a national caucus. There are few occasions where the states can unite in order to feel like part of a great cause, and when we have the opportunity to do so, we should take advantage of it.
- Elana Honick
Electing a President is an important factor and big decision as to how we live our life in America. I agree with Miriam about the video that explained why the Electoral College system should get rid of this way of voting for the President. It is very persuasive to say that government should get rid of this way of voting and turn to the popular vote. It seems most fair and equal to me that each person should have an equal say as to the future of our country. I believe that its unfair to say that my vote as a New York citizen barely counts because it wont make a difference in the end as the Electoral College in my area does not have enough votes or that it always votes to one party and not the other. I agree with Pamela and understand how she says that if the President isn’t good once he is elected one could simply blame it on the electoral vote rather than the popular one. It is difficult to make a decision which is best because both methods have good and bad points. The best thing we can do at this point is to still come out and vote in the person that we feel will be best suited to be President and leave the decision on what is best to the legislature to figure out what is best for the people.
ReplyDeleteI believe a little differently than most people on the blog. I believe that each person should have an equal vote to the exact President. If there can be websites (like WeThePeople) that go exactly to the President and his workers, why can't there be a direct vote to the President. I understand that it is a little different because WeThePeople may not be exactly to the President, but it seems to me that it is a lot closer to the actual President then voting for the the voting process for the President. As Elana said, there is obviously a reason why a huge portion of America does not like the President, maybe the reason is because we really don't feel a connected to votes as we should feel. This day in age is the age of connection. We connect to Israel just as easily as we connect to people who are a block away from us, why can't we do similar with the President. The websites and the fact that we can go on lobby missions, and even meet the President himself, is great; but maybe it is time to move a little closer to the President. It is shaped through who can run, why does it have to be even more shaped by who can vote? Maybe if America voted for the actual President, maybe they would appreciate the President a little bit more and be happy with their country and their politics that their country has.
ReplyDeleteIt would make me nervous to resort to the popular vote. If we adopt the popular vote, then we are relying on the fact that every person is equally trustworthy to decide who should be the next president -- something that I do not think is entirely true. I personally wouldn't want someone who is picking the president based on his charisma and someone who consistently follows politics to have equal votes. By means of the electoral college, which amplifies the majority in each state, we just have to trust that the majority of the people in that state made an educated decision to override the people who may not have put as much thought into their choice.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do think there is a major flaw in the electoral college system that should be adapted. I don't like that certain majorities are amplified different amounts depending on the size of the state and its number of representatives. Majorities in larger states end up overriding much larger numbers of people who voted for the other candidate than in smaller states, thereby significantly decreasing the value of an individual who voted against that majority and increasing the value of the individual voted in support of the majority. Because the number of electoral votes vary so much between states, the individual vote is amplified different amounts, giving certain larger states more power in the ultimate election.
My novel suggestion would be to maintain the electoral college, but to actually divide the country into regions with equal populations and equal numbers of electoral votes. That way, we still have the benefits that the electoral college has over the popular vote, but every person's vote will be amplified the same amount.
I will admit that I am still not one-hundred percent sure that I fully understand the complicated system of the Electoral College. Despite this, from what I do understand, I do not think that it is a fair or entirely democratic system. The Electoral College seems to be inaccurate in its nature, as the video “Why The Electoral College is Unfair and Unconstitutional!!!” showed. It did not make sense to me that some states have too few or too many electors relative to their populations. Also it did not seem fair that one citizen’s vote should have more or less value than the vote of someone from another state. If the people want one thing and demonstrate that opinion, it seems absurd to me that in a democracy where their voices are supposed to be heard, they do not get what they want. Specifically, there have been three elections in which the president who won was not the one chosen by the people in the popular vote. The elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000 were all not reflective of the choice of the people and resulted in presidents being chosen by the Electoral College and not by the people. Maybe if more people felt their voice had more value they would make an increased effort to vote. In short, I do not think that the Electoral College is an accurate or fair way of conducting an election.
ReplyDeleteI whole-heartedly agree with Miriam, Tamar and anyone else who is more partial to thinking that the Electoral College system should be abolished. If you think about it, it's really absurd;states have too few or too many electors relative to their populations- looking at the fun graph at the top of the blog I was not shocked, but horrified to discover that California has 11 times the amount of electoral votes than New Mexico; how is that fair just because they have a larger population? Echoing what others before me have written,elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000 were all not reflective of the choice of the people and resulted in presidents being chosen by the Electoral College and not by the people. I remember being 10 years old, watching the election with my parents and my outrage at the stupidity of the Electoral College when Bush was declared the President. The people's vote barely counts with the Electoral College system and that's not the way it should be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those arguments that theoretically a popular vote is ideal, but in reality it could work and most people would not feel comfortable relying solely on the popular vote. We have spoken many times in class about the way the general public makes their political decisions and how uninformed they are about the political reality and I don't think it's a good idea to rely on this type of population to choose our president. However, as has been stated before, the facts of the Electoral College as it stands know are slightly absurd. It seems as though most votes are irrelevant. I do not have ideas as to how the Electoral College could be modified, but I think that is what should happen. The Electoral College should not be abolished but some type of modifications need to be made that will at least somewhat satisfy both sides.
ReplyDeleteI think a modified Electoral College would be best. If we are already taking some of the power away from the people in the electing process and giving it to the Electoral College, at least the process should be "fair." I believe that the representation in the Electoral College should be strictly proportional based on population so that everyone's vote counts for the same amount. That way you get the best of both worlds.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Electoral College should be abolished. Dan Lowenstein’s argument in favor of the Electoral College seemed too theoretical to me. For example, he said that the controversy in Florida would have been fifty times worse but he doesn’t explain how. He also says that if a candidate who is chosen by popular vote has a stroke or a terrible scandal comes up, the Electoral College is there to sort of sweep in and decide who the best candidate would be. He says this system is superior to taking matters to the courts, but in the 2000 Bush/Gore election, didn’t we end up doing just that? My last problem with his argument is that he says that our system has produced amazing presidents the likes of which only Britain can perhaps compete with and their system of election is even less direct (debatable). Firstly, there have been only three cases in which the president did not win the plurality of the popular vote. Doesn’t that mean that in 41 out of 44 cases we would have ended up with the same president regardless of the Electoral College? Based on what we learned about the framers and their elitist attitude towards the presidency I really do think it was put in place to keep the people from having a powerful say in who becomes the president and I therefore think that the Electoral College should be done away with.
ReplyDeleteI think that as a democracy it's very important for the peoples' voice to be heard in the government. However, there is a limit to how much we can trust our decisions on a popular vote. The government doesn't ask the nation to vote on whether certain laws should be passed or not. This has to be dealt by intellectual politicians who know what they are doing and have experience. Therefore, I think that we should keep to the electoral college system. Maybe it could be adjusted a bit since it does get very complicated but overall, I think it works well for America.
ReplyDeleteI thought both of the videos made very compelling arguments both for and against the electoral college, but at the end of the day I think that although the electoral college is a flawed system and is not as democratic as many of us would like it to be, it works and it helps the government run more efficiently. I think the fact that the electoral college amplifies majorities is significant because it allows a president who won by a slim margin in the popular vote to appear as if he had more national support than he did, and although this might be a bit deceiving a president with more national support will be able to govern more effectively. It's also important that the electoral college puts the spotlight on states especially today when the federal government continues to grow and grow. That being said I think the system is flawed but to me it seems like a better alternative than a simple popular vote.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to explore why the founders set up this system in the first place. One of the reasons is similar to what Serena said, they were trying to protect against an uneducated public. Another thing to note is when this was system was created before the emergence of political parties, which throw a wrench into this whole thing. Now that there are political parties, the problem that occurs is that a person voting in a state that always votes for Republican his vote for a Democratic does not really count. Without parties, ideally people would vote for who they thought was the best candidate and not necessarily vote strictly along party lines.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Electoral College does do is solve another problem we have, expensive campaigns. Presidential campaign collect a ridiculous amount of money, image how much more money they would need if they had to campaign as rigorously as they do in Iowa in the rest of the states.
I see why people argue that the Electoral College needs to be changed, but I think it’s a matter of choosing which system has problems you can work with. The Electoral may have its faults, but there would be different issues with a direct election. The direct election option isn’t without its own issues.
Reading through everyone’s blog posts I am still undecided about where I stand in the Electoral College Debate. As others have already said, the Electoral College is efficient. I am concerned that abolishing it will dramatically effect our political system. It is for this reason I think that getting completely rid of the Electoral System is too big of a change to be realistic. That being said, with our current Electoral College system people feel like own vote does not have much of an influence in federal politics and this needs to change. I think the Electoral College system should remain in place, but should be modified to allow Americans to feel like their individual vote matters. Before reading through everyone’s postings I was unsure what these changes should be and how to better the system. I then read Sarina’s post and I strongly agree with her. Her suggestion would, as she wrote, “have the benefits that the electoral college has over the popular vote, but every person's vote will be amplified the same amount.”
ReplyDelete