Political Laryngitis: The Stifled Voice of the American Voter

“We The People”, the three words that serve as the foundation for our country’s most important document, could not be less accurate when discussing how our elections are set up. As everyone reading this knows, the current leader of our country represents a minority of the popular vote, making him our 2nd minority president in 5 elections. Regardless of political affiliation, we can not deny that the will of the people is not currently decided in our country’s federal elections, but how do we fix this discrepancy? The altering the electoral college would be an easy answer, but there are other problems that could rise in altering the system.

First off, the college was set into the framework of the constitution, so getting rid of it would take an immense amount of work. First off, both sections of Congress would have to pass an amendment abolishing it by three-fourths majority, which would be near impossible considering that the controlling party in both just won an election because of the system. It would be possible, however, for state governments to change how their electoral votes are counted. Most states use a winner take all system for votes, however both Maine and Nebraska award votes, “according to district as well as statewide results”(Schlesinger). So why haven’t more states switched to a method that splits the vote more like the population? By giving all of their electoral votes to one candidate, it “augments their power”(Schlesinger), essentially making state opinion’s count more than national opinions in the voting.

 

I highly doubt that this alone would fix the system anyways. In a study done by Jeff Singer of The Daily Kos, he found that, “Despite losing the national popular vote by 2.1%, Donald Trump carried 230 congressional districts and Hillary Clinton just 205.” Even if every state voted in the manner that Maine and Nebraska do, Trump would have acquired 230 votes through congressional districts and 60 more votes by winning 30 states outright, giving him 20 more votes than he needed to win the election. It might surprise people that this would be the case (it certainly surprised me), but it makes sense politically. Trump ran as a republican, the party that currently controls the House of Representatives, meaning that most of the congressional districts would align themselves with him.
These districts bring their own political problems to the table, however. These districts are zoned by state legislators, meaning that whichever party controls the state government, also has the power to effect the representation of their party in Congress. As a matter of fact, David A. Lieb of the Associated Press “found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected.” So, if, hypothetically, every district were rezoned to give candidates a more equal chance at congressional representation, There would be 22 more Democratic districts. In the situation that every state divides electoral votes out like Maine and Nebraska, this might have caused Trump to get 22 less votes, preventing him from clinching the presidency by 2. Of course this is not a perfect system, but it is much closer than we currently are.

New Times New Election

The presidential election is the United States biggest and most important elections. Every four years we put a new leader into office by everyone going to their local voting booth and checking off a box for their preferred candidate, but what most Americans don’t realise is that they are not actually voting for one of the candidates, for example in The U.S’s previous election Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump they are voting for a side in the Electoral College a group of electors who have pledged to a certain side and then they vote for a candidate and the side with the most electoral votes from each state wins all the votes from that state and if a candidate gets 270 votes they win the election. This middle man in the election has caused a lot of trouble in the 2000 election and in the 2016 election and now the public is asking the question has the Electoral College outlasted its stay or is it relevant in our changing times.In the 2016 election the candidate that won the election did not win the popular vote, something that has only happened one other time in The United States’s history. So people are finally noticing the middle man in the election process. Newsmax has listed pros and cons of this process and they mention that the process “dissuades people from voting” and makes the public feel as if “their vote does not matter” but this is not true, the election process is just so complicated that people don’t understand it and feel like their say is worthless. 

On the other hand a positive of the Electoral College is that it gives more power to the states. And allows the smaller states to have a greater say in the election. But really the public wants the election to be on their level, from people to president, not people to state to president. And maybe the Electoral College was made in an attempt to protect the American people from mob mentality, but would that not take away from our freedom of speech? The whole issue is complicated and I believe that it would be best if we abolished the Electoral College to simplify the election process.

The reason I say this is because would it not be rationally better to make sure that all American citizens have the chance to really know how much their vote is worth rather than the government attempting to protect them from a mob mentality. Our society should teardown what we know about voting and start again with something that will work well in our modern age.

Should people remove the “old fashion” electoral college?

Electoral College is a voting system for nowadays’s election. However, there are a lot of argument about whether the system should be abolished or preserved.

Should Electoral College be preserved or removed? This question is not easy to solve. There are lots of problems caused by the Electoral College system. For example, candidates will only go to New York because bigger states have more electors. And also, it is possible that the reflect of the popular votes of the citizens is not accurate enough, and also the minority candidate can be selected in this condition. Actually, the nearest president election, which trump wins, represents the small possibility of the not accurate reflection. In this election, we can clearly see that Trump has less votes than Hillary Clinton in citizens votes. However, Trump got more electors’ votes than Hillary Clinton, which in this case the electoral college system does not represent popular votes at all.

The other negative effect of the Electoral College is that those electors do not vote for their candidate will be called “faithless electors”. Sometimes electors will not vote because they already know the result and they do not think their decision matters a lot. Therefore they might want to give others information by not voting. From my perspective, it is not fair to call someone “faithless elector” although they did not vote for their candidates. People cannot give them extra press through their whole lives.

There’s also positive effect about the electoral college. Thinking about collecting all the votes from every citizen and count the result, I would say that electoral college is easier because they only have 538 votes in total. My personal thinking is that electoral college should be taken out so that the candidates will no longer focus on the bigger states, instead citizens can get more information about the election and each candidates. I also know that candidates can choose states that have bigger population to go to, in this way they can get more votes and win the election. “The Electoral College was necessary when communications were poor, literacy was low, and voters lacked information about out-of-state figures, which is clearly no longer the case,” a quote said by Gene Green. I totally agree with him because technology is developed in USA, people can see and hear what candidates are doing on the television. Therefore everyone should have the right to vote, by voting I mean everyone should have the vote to decide with president they are voting for, not which president they want their elector to vote for. Citizens might get upset if the elector is not voting for their candidate. At least people should be responsible for their own vote.

 

Should the Electoral College System be Preserved?

Many forces shape the political strategy of presidential elections, but few are more significant than the Electoral College. This complex, rather odd institution was yet another compromise at the Constitutional Convention, a means to moderate the “passions of the public” and to allow smaller states a greater say in the selection of the president.

Today, the Electoral College system shapes the politics of how and where presidential candidates campaign in the general election. And, occasionally, as in the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, the Electoral College is decisive in determining which candidate wins the White House.

Walter Berns, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute says KEEP IT: “I doubt we could come up with a better system than they (the Founders) did.”

Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) says DUMP IT: “The Electoral College is an antiquated institution that has outlived its purpose… it represents a serious and persistent flaw in our current system.”

What do YOU think about the Electoral College – keep it, alter it, dump it??

(For full credit, offer evidence from your text OR FROM YOUR OWN RESEARCH to bolster your argument!)

Image Source: C-SPAN Classroom

Who Really Has the Power?

Source: Kids Voting MC

From the beginning of trimester one to the end of trimester two, we have learned everything from what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote our constitution, to what is to happen to our economy in the near future with the fiscal cliff the country is going over. What I found most interesting was learning about the voting process. Since I started learning about the voting process when I was younger, I always thought the president was elected only using the popular vote. Over the years I started hearing about the “electoral college“. I never paid much attention to the term and what it meant until we began to talk about it in this course. 

The electoral college is a vote compromised between votes from congress and the popular votes of citizens. It consists of 538 electors and a majority of 270 votes are required to elect a president. Each state has a different amount of electors depending on how many members it has in its Congressional Delegation. Under the 23rd amendment, the District of Columbia has 3 electors as it is treated like a state during election time for reasons having to do with the Electoral College. To determine which candidate in an election gets the vote from the electoral college of each state, there is a thing called “winner-takes-all” which is where the winner of the popular vote in a specific state gets the electoral votes from that state. In the end, which ever candidate has the most electoral votes wins the election. Because the constitution established this idea of the electoral college, a candidate can win the popular vote, but still lose the election.

Source: Cottondew

 

What caught my attention the most was the fact that a candidate can win the popular vote, but lose the election. To me, this makes it seem like the votes of the people don’t matter. If a candidate wins the popular vote, he should win the election. If a candidate wins the popular vote that shows that he or she is the person the people of the United States want in office as the leader of our country. 

Becoming a Citizen

One can be a technically be a citizen, but if they do not practice their duties, are they really a citizen?  Government taught me not only the foundations of our government system, but also how to understand, manipulate, and follow it.  The thing I found most interesting was the election process.  Honestly, I didn’t know anything about the electoral college before taking the government course.  Knowing how the American government system works is the first step in becoming an active, and true citizen.  Furthermore, knowing how to find and understand information is what makes an active citizen unique.  Understanding the aspects of government is not small; there are many different components to it, but with the use of new information mediums, it is a reasonable task.  The use of internet allows access to an abundance of information and must be utilized by an active citizen.

Electoral College

Elections represent the founding spirit and beliefs America abides by, and are arguably the most significant facets of our society.  To begin, when looking at the electoral college, I was surprised to find a vote really isn’t a direct vote for the president.  At the same time, votes are the solely the most important part of a democracy, and passively sitting back defeats and purpose of the system.  Understanding what one’s vote is actually doing, as well as the power behind it is what makes a true citizen.  The interactive part of our course where we made predictions on the outcome of the 2012 election was especially interesting.  Looking at all the different information at hand, and then coming up with conclusions was really helpful in understanding what exactly was going on.  It was also exciting on the election day to see who was wrong or right (my predictions were correct as usual).  With all the excitement wrapped up in that, the use of technology was a refreshing outlet for all thoughts and opinions.  Most teachers neglect to follow the technological world, and the integration of Twitter was exceptional.  As a student, I was exposed to endless viewpoints from real people, and as a citizen I was able to conclude rational things based on the information at hand.

The word refreshing describes that technology is not used enough in the classroom.  There is quite literally endless amounts of knowledge, and information provided though this medium.  Technology adds fuel to the engine that is a student’s brain.  When they think that they are doing something just for a grade, the ethics are not as enthusiastic.  The internet backs assignments with reason and cause because of an audience.  Using the internet as a medium also allows group collaboration between peers, and even outside sources.  This is a valuable asset to current learning.  I learned not only how to access the internet and manipulate for my on benefit, but also how to collaborate and gain new perspectives.  All this information is necessary for a citizen to participate properly in government.

Participation in voting, although increasing, is below 70%
American citizens need to be more active and understand their role

After understanding where to find the information, as well as learn all the facts, a citizen must understand the importance of using these facts, and the role they play in society.  The Presidential elections is an obvious example of the necessity a citizen plays, but is only one of many.  Understanding votes is easy, but there so many other ways to get involved in elections.  The basis of getting involved in elections is through the pathways of actions (court, grassroot-mobilization, cultural change, lobbying, elections).  These are the main seeds which have endless potential for growth.  Elections are one of the pathways for a citizen to get involved.  Deciding who to vote for is the first main issue a citizen faces.  Grassroot Mobilization is a way to draw attention to a candidate.  In addition to all the other pathways in government, I learned that a citizen must take an active role using pathways to become an avid voter. Voting is only a start to getting involved in elections, there are many other aspects a person can get involved in, especially in media and internet.  Insight on how elections work is just one example of the importance of a citizen.  The fundamental of American government is the citizen, and knowing one’s value is key.

Overall, the use of internet was the most unique, and boundless part of the course.  Through it I rediscovered a new area of knowledge, and interaction.  It has helped me become a well rounded citizen, and gave insight to information I didn’t understand before.  Taking a passive role as a citizen nulls the efforts a democracy creates.  Additionally, taking an active role as a citizen but remaining ignorant is just as bad.  Not participating as a citizen cancels the idea, ideology, and overall beliefs of America.  Active involvement in government, in addition to knowledge is essential for the system to work properly.  Information is readily available to anyone who seeks it; government has taught me that.

Participation in the election process is one key role an active citizen must engage in

The Interesting and Complicated Process of the Presidential Election

What I have found to be the most interesting part of our Government course is the rules and process for the election of the President of the United States because they are essential for a citizen to function in the United States.  The Electoral College is the process used by the United States to elect its President, giving votes not to citizens but to states, then the citizens decide how to spend their states votes.   What I found interesting was when I went and did my own research about the electoral college, and found many people disliking the system in its flaws and how some citizens are not counted as equals in the eyes of the Electoral college because some states receive more votes than they should and some states receive fewer votes than they should.  I found out some of this information through what should be a new learning resource, YouTube and the intellectual insight of CGPGrey and his video The Trouble with the Electoral College.  His videos showed me how the system works, how it is flawed and how it can be improved.

The Electoral College is the process to decide the president that divides 538 votes among the 50 states and Washington D.C.  The 538 votes are divided by population, with states like California and Texas receiving the most votes, and states like Montana and Rhode Island receiving the least votes.  Each state first receives 3 votes and then the rest are distributed by population.  On election day when citizens go to vote, they don’t vote directly for a candidate but their vote tells their state where they want the state to send its votes.  A candidate simply has to win a majority of the popular vote in a state to receive all of that state’s electoral votes.  This system becomes a problem in close states when the candidates are basically tied, whoever breaks that tie and takes the lead in that state gets 100% of that state’s electoral vote, even though possibly only 51% of the population of that state voted for him.  The Electoral College is a voting system that only cares about states, not citizens.

A problem that arises with the Electoral College is the problem of swing states, the only states that really matter in an election. As the process developed, many states became solid states, or states that will always vote for the same party.  The largest Republican solid state is Texas, while the largest Democratic solid states are California and New York.  Solid states rarely, if ever, switch so they basically guarantee each candidate a certain number of Electoral votes, all they will have to do is win over the swing states.  Swing states are states that “swing” from political party to political party each election.  They are the states that can go to either side, and that makes them the states that matter and where candidates spend all their time and money.  A citizens vote in a solid state does not really matter in the electoral college, while the vote of a citizen of a swing state is almost the weight of the whole election.  The Electoral College creates these swing states, if it was abolished, then Presidential candidates would have to pay attention to basically every citizen, not just the citizens of swing states.

The swing states Presidential candidates focus on during an election

The essential problem with the Electoral College is in the method in which the votes are processed.  When the Electoral College gives out three votes to each state and then distributes the rest by population, even at this point the system is unfair.  For the Electoral College to be logical, the 538 votes need to be divided up evenly by population, and by starting the process by giving each state three votes, some states already have more votes than they should have.  States like Alaska and Wyoming should only have 1 or 2 electoral votes, but because of the process starts by giving each state three votes, they have more than they should.  Much larger states than have to basically “donate” electoral votes to smaller states, for instance; Texas has 6 fewer votes than it should and California has 10 fewer votes than it should.  Because of this disproportion of votes, the Electoral College makes it seem as though more people live where they don’t and fewer people live where they do.  The simple solution to solve these problems created by the electoral college is to simply do away with the process, so that everyone is equal in the eyes of the Presidential election.

Candidate can receive only 22% of the popular vote and win the electoral college by getting 50+% in all of the small states where they have more electoral college votes than they should.

To Preserve or not To Preserve

The Electoral College is a body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. Over the duration of our Government course, we have taken a portion of that time to educate ourselves on the importance of the electoral college, along with the disadvantages that accompany it. In spite of the disadvantages of the electoral college, I have learned, the system should be preserved in the future. 

The Electoral College comes with several disadvantages. Some disadvantages to the Electoral College system include that candidates that win more popular votes can be still denied the presidency. Also, many people argue over the fact that depending on which state you live in, citizens experience presidential campaigns in vastly different ways due to the Electoral College. In the case that no candidate gets the majority of the electoral votes, the vote is settled in the House of Representatives which takes out the people’s vote entirely. Furthermore, the Electoral College “is ‘dangerous,’ not only dangerous but undemocratic” (Berns, 122). The danger that Berns describes is “said to consist in the possibility that a candidate might receive a majority of the electoral votes while receiving fewer popular votes than his or her opponent” (Berns, 122). However, along with the disadvantages are many advantages.

The Electoral College is incredibly crucial to our voting system. “It would be hard to overstate the importance of the Electoral College in American politics… in every presidential election, this awkward procedure shapes the election process – from party nominations to the selection of running mates, overall strategy, fundraising activities, candidate events, distributing resources, media coverage…” (Shea, 122). The Electoral College system gives the small states a chance against the large states. Because the large states have so many more voters, it puts the small states at a disadvantage. According to the textbook, “if the selection of the president was based on popular vote, the largest states (states with the most voters) would elect their favorite son every time” (reader, 121-140). However, a candidate must receive the majority of Electoral College votes, meaning at least half of the overall number of electoral votes. This gives the small states a better chance at getting their candidate elected.

The Electoral College is therefore a necessary piece of the American democracy. Without the Electoral College, smaller states would have no chance at getting their opinion voiced because they have smaller populations and less voters. It makes each election an equal race and must be preserved.

 

Time to Acknowledge the Electoral College

The Electoral College was created by the founding fathers as a way to make voting more fair for the smaller states in the voting process during the presidential elections. The point of the electoral college was for the popular vote to not be the only deciding factor in an election.

The smaller states need a form of voting that benefits them so they are treated the same as the larger states. In The Washington Monthly Andrew Gelman wrote: “On average, the electoral college benefits voters in small states, in the sense that an individual voter in a randomly-selected small state is more likely to have a decisive vote, compared to an individual voter in a randomly-selected large state. With a national popular vote, of course, all votes are equally likely to be decisive.” I agree with Andrew Gelman on this, the electoral college was made for the benefit of the smaller states.

Credit to Wikipedia

The founding fathers wanted the states to have more of a say than the people, which is why they created the electoral college, so the popular vote was not the only thing taken into account. The founding fathers created the electoral college for two reasons said by Marc Schulman: “The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.”(historycentral.com) Although most presidents who win the popular vote win the electoral college it is not always this way. In 2000 the presidential race of George Bush against Al Gore is one exception. Al Gore won the popular vote with a total number of votes at 50,999,897, while Bush only had 50,456,002 votes. Bush however run the election because he has 271 electoral votes while Gore only had 266. In my opinion, it isn’t fair for the state to have more of a say than the people, if the people run the country shouldn’t their voices be the most important factor?

The Electoral college has some pros and cons to it. The Electoral College can be a good thing because victory can’t come only from urban areas. The candidate cant win where heavily populated areas favor the candidate, they must have a more widespread amount of fans. This also helps to maintain the separation of powers and to make sure the President does not try and overthrow the other branches of government while in office.

Credit the The Costarican Times

The electoral college does have some downsides to it. Many people think we have become too modern for it and we have outgrown the system the founding fathers created. Another issue is that the swing states get the majority of the attention. The swing states change election imafter election on whether they go left or right, they are normally the deciding factors for the entire presidential election. Electoral College can also give voters the feeling that their one vote will not make a difference and they are not as encouraged to go and vote.

I believe the electoral college is a fair and easy way to help the voting process, although some things are not in the best interest of the electoral college, overall it is a good idea. If it comes to the point where people no longer want the electoral college around it would take a lot to change this, a blog wrote: “In order to change the Electoral College a constitutional amendment would need to be passed (ratified by ¾ of the states) The smaller states who are at the advantage have little reason to agree upon a change.” The smaller states get their chance to speak out and have their voices heard, although it does make voters believe their vote wont matter it still helps all of the states to have an equal say regardless of their size.

Popular Vote Isn’t Looking So Popular Anymore

A government for and by the people: the essence of democracy, right? On the surface, with that reasoning, the popular vote seems much more democratic than the Electoral College. A popular vote seems like the most democratic thing to do.  But, after a deeper look into this clever system of checks and balances our forefathers put into play called the Electoral College, it’s importance in the United States’s election process is inarguable.  Comparing ‘wins’ from each state to come to a consensus rather than looking at the raw number of votes overall, on the surface, seems pointless(according to the large group of people opposed to the Electoral College).  Nobody seems to apply this same type of logic into questioning the system in play with the Senate and the House of Representatives: representatives from each state reporting the will of their own region and decisions being made through this method.  These systems are key to the democracy of the United States and there are crucial reasons our founders put them into play: to avoid the “tyranny of the majority”, to ensure a broad geographical support base for the elected President, and to rat crazy radical parties out of the running.

One fundamental quality of the Electoral College it’s ability to make sure that the voices of the minorities aren’t drowned out by the “tyranny of the majority”.  This ensures that the opinions of the important minorities are taken into account and heard.  Without the Electoral College, the voices of the minorities may be drowned out by the “tyranny of the majority”.  Groups of minorities, economic or ethnic may be big in certain states and in order to win that state’s vote, the candidate must cater(somewhat) to the will of the minority, or address the issues which concern them.  Minorities “both ethnic and economic, would likely be very important in some states”(Monaldo). Even though a popular vote seems like the most democratic thing to do, a popular  vote does nothing to prevent the opinion of the majority from drowning out the voice of the minority, and thus destroying the true democracy in the process.  Giving everybody a fair chance to have a say in the election is crucial to a democratic election process, and the Electoral College does this.

Also, the Electoral College ensures that the President has broad support over the entire country, rather than just large support in a specific region because it takes broad support from all over the country for a candidate to become President.  Otherwise a candidate could be elected because they are heavily supported in a particular region and not necessarily the other regions.  If they’re only regional candidates, then it takes away from the cohesiveness of the country.  Support from several highly populated areas shouldn’t speak for the entire country.  In order for one to be elected by a country this big, a system needs to be called into play to make sure the Presidential support is evened out throughout the country.  Because candidates must campaign to a broad base of people across different regions, they are forced to address issues which are generally supported by a more diverse group of people, which means they must be less radical.  Sticking to a pattern of gradual change has never proved wrong for the stable democracy of the United States, and the Electoral Colleges makes sure to keep our country on track.

Electoral College strengthens broad parties with a large consensus from people of different regions, and rats out radical parties concentrated in one region. Small parties really wouldn’t participate in the election process if the United States simply had a popular vote, it’s the hard truth: they would have absolutely no chance.  With the Electoral College, if the small party is impactful enough, they can win the vote of their state and actually make an impact on the election.  But, essentially the small parties won’t participate in the election at all if they aren’t big enough to sway the vote of their state.  This keeps the small parties from having too much of an impact on the outcome of the election if they don’t have enough support.  The only way a party would be able to win the Electoral College is if they have a broad base

The Electoral College compares decisions from each state to come to a general consensus rather than basing a decision solely on the raw numbers each citizen presents.  Arguing against the electoral college is like arguing against the system set into play by the Senate and the House, because they both have the same logic which aims to use equal amounts of input from each state.  The United State’s extreme stability over the years through times of hardship is a reflection of the systems, first coined by our founders, which we use to run our country.  These systems of checks and balances, including the Electoral College, ensure gradual developments and reject radical sudden changes.  Voicing the opinions of the minorities, ensuring a widely supported President, and ratting out radical/closely concentrated extremist groups are some of the key qualities of the Electoral College which have led to it’s success in keeping our country on a stable road to vitality.