Our country was founded with a population of around 2.5 million individuals scattered about the East coast (1). Currently, New York City alone nearly triples this population size. The 2.5 million Americans that resided in the newly established United States were of like mind. In these times there was less to be concerned with as it was predominately one demographic, white religious Americans. Not only were these individuals of the same demographic, but they were unified in the fact they had just broken free from tyranny and felt power in the way their government was run. The electoral college worked then. In the modern United States, there is too much of a discrepancy between the two parties, that allows citizens to be misrepresented if they live in a state that has large cities with vastly different beliefs than them or live in a smaller state with less electoral votes. Not everyone’s beliefs are being addressed, overlooking citizen values that never get to be represented in the federal government. If there is an overall amount of individuals who would prefer one president over the other, and the electoral college doesn’t result in the same outcome, it makes Americans lose faith in their political system. Individuals love to say that every vote matters, but with an electoral college, this proves to be false. The electoral college prevents innovation in the United States by not accounting for each and every person’s beliefs. It is outdated and either needs strong reformation in how/where the electoral college represents votes, or the popular vote should be the deciding factor.
American Presidency
Maggie,
I disagree that the EC is outdated or silences a voice of the majority. In the 2016 Election the Democratic candidate did when the popular vote and lose the EC vote. However, if you removed the votes of L.A. county in California then the Democratic candidate would not have won the popular vote. This is direct evidence that the industrial areas of the country still have a dominant position over the rural regions of the nation. If popular vote were the way in which the winner was determined states like Alaska would have little impact on the choice of leadership for the nation. No candidate would visit rural locations in a campaign instead focusing on a couple of counties in a very large nation. Issues raised in a campaign would be catered toward the massive population centers conversely issues important to rural regions would be ignored. The EC has its flaws but it gives low population centers a say in who represents them.
Thanks,
Tim Fewless
Thanks for posting Tim. I think an interesting point is that currently the EC doesn’t actually fully account for population, states with much smaller populations can overhaul thousands of peoples votes because of how the EC counts votes using Senators standard two seats. While I do understand the point you make; as someone from a small state, I think that joining my vote with everyone else across the country who has voted the same way actually presents more control over elections that what the current standard is. Alaska’s three votes are not swing votes, Presidential candidates or even Presidents rarely make it up here. Because so much power is vested in the state and not in the individuals, candidates spend time trying to ensure the votes of certain counties to swing an entire state and then an entire election. If I vote for Party B and only one hundred thousand other people across the state do, all our votes are considered a wash in the current system. But if I vote for Party B and 5 million other people across the country also do, I feel like that is a better representation of free and fair, of election by popular vote.
I’m sorry I have no idea how that comment got posted on two threads! Still figuring out Word Press I guess! Thanks guys.
Maggie,
I am also in agreement with the statement that the electoral college should be abolished (I cannot see any other con posts other than one, so I am commenting on yours), so I figured I would ask a question or two to get a conversation going. I think you bring up an interesting point regarding the representation of different beliefs, but I will say that I think this is an issue that cannot be alleviated merely by who we elect into the office of president, nor do I think that the way our elections are run can fix this issue. Like you said, at the time that the U.S. became a country there was only one primary perspective that was considered valuable, and that was those of white, Christian males. That is obviously not the case anymore, as after several different civil rights movements, everyone is seen as having a voice. In other words, we have so many different demographics in the U.S. that ideally should be equally represented that it is impossible to come up with a way to make everyone happy. What do you think?
Maggie,
I agree with you in that the Electoral College holds too much power and fails to represent the people who live in the modern United States. There is a issue when you delegate the choices of millions to 4 people who are expected to represent the populations that vote for them. There is nothing that truly stops them from voting another party either, while there’s a sort of backlash threat, there is no real limitations official set. This means that if a group believes in one thing, since they aren’t the majority, they may be overlooked and then there’s no real reason to even vote anymore. That might be what contributes to such low voter turn out is that the Electoral College are the ones who really decide and the people’s vote is more participation awards.