Carson 1
Nicole Claire Carson Mr. Hawkins American Government Government P Due: 10/22/14 !oul" t!e #lectoral Colle$e %e a%olis!e"& '(!e #lectoral Colle$e in t!e ) is a %o"* o+ ,eo,le re,resentin$ t!e states o+ t!e )- w!o +ormall* cast votes +or t!e election o+ t!e ,resi"ent an" t!e vice ,resi"ent. (!e #lectoral Colle$e !as %een t!e s*stem o+ votin$ in t!e ) since 1- %ut wit! t!e $rowin$ an" c!an$in$ o+ our countr*- it !as %een a ver* controversial to,ic w!et!er or not to kee, t!e s*stem in ,lace. n +ive se,arate occasions in t!e !istor* o+ our countr*t!e #lectoral Colle$e !as vote" a$ainst maorit* rules +or t!e nation3s ,resi"ent. Man* ma* sa* t!at t!is is an in+rin$ement on t!e ri$!ts o+ t!e ,eo,le t!emselves to vote +or t!eir own ,resi"ent- %ecause in t!ese +ive instances- it trul* was le+t to a small $rou, o+ ,eo,le to "eci"e w!at woul" %e %est +or t!e )nite" tates as a countr*- wit!out takin$ t!e ,eo,les3 votes un"er consi"eration. The Electoral College is unfair and should be abolished because small states are overrepresented, third party candidates are completely eliminated, and the system itself is undemocratic and flawed. First, let’s refer back to the D! packet, document D, the chart shows that twelve of the smaller states plus the District of Columbia has a smaller population "#$,%&&,'$$ people( than the state of )llinois alone "#$,*+&,+$(, but the smaller states added up have more electoral votes, -&, than )llinois’ $$ votes. (!is alone
Carson 2
s!ows t!at one ,erson3s electoral vote +rom an* one o+ t!e smaller states- !as more wei$!t t!an a sin$le ,erson3s vote +rom sa* (eas . The Electoral College violates political e/uality. )t is not a neutral counting device0 )t favors some citi1ens over others, depending solely upon the state in which voters cast their vote for president02 (!is 5uote %* Geor$e C. #"war"s $ets t!e ,oint across ver* clearl*6 t!e
votes aren3t s,rea" %ase" on ,o,ulation- makin$ t!em un+airl* "istri%ute". (!is $ives t!e smaller states more o+ a sa*- an" a ,resi"ent coul" easil* win maorit* rules in t!e electoral votes- wit!out even touc!in$ over !al+ o+ t!e states. )n the document analysis on document 3 of the D! packet asks 4hat is the smallest number of states a candidate could win and win the Electoral College52 A+ter "oin$ t!e mat!- 7
+oun" t!at t!e ,resi"ent coul" win t!e #lectoral Colle$e votes in merel* t!irteen statesan" still win %* maorit* rules. (!is leaves t!irt*8seven states- more t!an a t!ir" o+ t!e states in t!e countr*- wit!out a ,ro,er sa* as to w!o t!e ,resi"ent will %e. Anot!er ,ro%lem wit! wit! t!e #lectoral #lectoral Colle$e Colle$e is t!at it com,letel* eliminates t!e t!ir"8,art* can"i"ate. 6n document of the D! packet both charts show very clearly, that regardless of the amount of the people that vote for the third party candidate, the Electoral College gives them no votes in order to ensure the ma7ority rules policy "over %&8 of electoral votes wins(. )n #9$$ the candidates were Clinton, ush, and :erot, and according to Document of the D! packet Clinton had -+8 of the popular vote, ush had +'.%8, and :erot had #*.98. 9it!
t!is in+ormation- it is ,rett* o%vious- t!at alt!ou$! !e was not t!e main conten"er- Perot "e+initel* was still in t!e runnin$- an" not wasn3t even ver* +ar %e!in" us!. u%se5uentl*- wit! t!e wa* t!at t!e electoral colle$e works- t!e vote was o%viousl*
Carson 3
more in one ,erson3s +avor- giving 9 electoral votes to Clinton, +# to ush, and completely eliminating :erot from the race. ;es- t!e ,o,ular vote still won- %ut
%ecause o+ t!e electoral vote- !e won %* a lan"sli"e. 7+ t!e electoral votes are $oin$ to continue to %e wei$!te" so !eavil*- t!an it is ver* a,,arent t!at t!ere will never %e a c!ance +or an* t!ir" ,art* conten"ers6 t!is !ar"l* seems "emocratic. As ,reviousl* ,reviousl* state"state"- t!e #lectoral #lectoral Colle$e s*stem "oes "oes !ave a ,ro%lem u,!ol"in$ t!e "emocratic values o+ t!e )nite" tates. ;eorge 4ill said The winner take all electoral vote allocation tends to produce a winning margin that looks like national decisiveness.2 asicall*- !e3s sa*in$ t!at re$ar"less o+ t!e ,eo,le3s ,o,ular
vote- %ecause o+ !ow !eavil* wei$!te" t!e electoral votes- t!e electoral colle$e $ets to c!oose t!e ,resi"ent t!e* want- an" %ecause o+ maorit* rules- t!ere is o+ten a !u$e $a, %etween t!e winner an" t!e runner u,. 9it! t!is ,rocess- it looks as i+ t!e nation is almost unanimousl* in a$reeance t!at t!is ,resi"ent is t!e one t!at s!oul" %e lea"in$ t!e countr*- w!en in realit*- t!e ,resi"ent coul" ver* well not even %e t!e one t!at t!e ,eo,le vote" +or. As well as in+rin$in$ on t!e ri$!t o+ ) citi
$ets t!e ,oint across in an etremel* "irect manner. 7+ t!e electoral radford :lumer $ets votes are tie"- t!en t!e votin$ %ecomes even more un+air %ecause o+ t!e
Carson 4
misre,resentation o+ state ,o,ulation in t!e House o+ =e,resentatives. >etting one 4yoming vote have 7ust as much weight as fifty?five of California’s votes seems
ver* %latantl* illo$ical an" un+air- %ut wit! t!e s*stem t!e ) is +ollowin$ ri$!t now- it ,oses a real t!reat o+ !a,,enin$. As !as %een %een note"note"- t!e #lectoral #lectoral Colle$eColle$e- alt!ou$! alt!ou$! once a $reat ,olitical ,olitical tool tool an" a"vancement +or our countr*- is now out"ate" an" un+air. 7t is +lawe" an" s!oul" %e a%olis!e" +or a num%er o+ reasons. (!ese reasons %ein$: t!e small states are overre,resente"- t!e t!ir" ,art* can"i"ates are %ein$ $iven no c!ances- an" t!e s*stem is un"emocratic. >or t!ese reasons- t!e constitution s!oul" %e c!an$e"- an" t!e #lectoral Colle$e s!oul" %e a%olis!e".
