What could possibly be considered the biggest detriment to the Electoral College is that a president can be elected to office without winning the majority vote. As George Bush proved in most recent memory. Also, in theory, the Electoral College forces candidates to spread their campaigns more equally in terms of geography. Additionally, the Electoral College provides the opportunity for an election to end in a tie.
If and when a tie does happen, the choice would be then deferred to the House of Representatives. B What are the major concerns about changing the Electoral College? There are many concerns with changing the manner in which one of the most successful governments in history elects the centerpiece to its hierarchy. The difficulty involved in amending the Constitution is one of the major issues facing the proponents of revision of the Electoral College.
It facilitates a two-party system. Some political activists may not be fans of the two-party system, but the Republican verses Democrats structure creates more stability, according to the Asia-Pacific Economic Blog.
The small number of political parties allows for generalized platforms instead of parties focused on specific issues. It directs more power to the states. States are given the power to select the delegates to the Electoral College, allowing them to participate in the selection of a president. It maintains the representative form of government, according to the U. The person a majority of Americans favor may not win. Certain smaller states have a larger percentage of Electoral College votes than their percentage of population of the United States.
This is because the minimum number of Electoral College votes for a state is three. Some consider this to not be democratic. A popular vote is a simple majority, but the Electoral College consists of redistributing votes every 10 years because of population changes and electing delegates. There are many more steps involved, which may give citizens the feeling that their vote does not matter, encouraging them to stay home instead of visiting the ballot box on election days, according to the U.
Small states and swing states get more power. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern. Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups.
This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those State with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number.
The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth. It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.
Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system.
There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.
House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate - and in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party. In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties.
Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives.
Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government. A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president.
The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election. The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be frayed and unstable political system characterized by a multitude of political parties and by more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next. The Electoral College system, in contrast, encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of coherent alternatives.
Such an organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the political stability of the nation. Finally, its proponents argue quite correctly that the Electoral College maintains a federal system of government and representation.
Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. In the United States, for example, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats.
The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency with the number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives. To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States.
Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative by changing it to a system of proportional representation?
This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government.
If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College? The fact is, they argue, that the original design of our federal system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers.
State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints.
A) What are the pros and cons of the Electoral College? An interesting point to this discussion is that many of the “pros” are argued by some to be disadvantages, and many of the “cons” are believed to be the advantages of the system by others. It could be said that the Electoral College was [ ].
Sample Essay. Words This essay discusses the pros and cons of the electoral college. the Electoral College system adds to the unity of the country be needing an allocation of popular support to be elected president, without such a instrument, they point out, president would be chosen either through the dominance of one populous region over the others or by the domination of large urban.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Electoral College. OccupyTheory. on 29 July, at They should then weigh the advantages and disadvantages of Electoral College. Advantages of the Electoral College. List of Pros and Cons of Labrador Retriever;. The Electoral College: Pros and Cons Essay by tjusky, High School, 11th grade, A+, June download word file, 5 pages download word file, 5 pages 7 votes 1 reviews/5(1).
Pros and cons of electoral college essay Enjoy proficient essay hedge fund client introductions for a fly fisher indie alaska features pudge was designed to our website, inc. Pudge was designed to use our website, bruno's wax peppers, and in essays, inc. The electoral college is a tradition of American politics that's pretty controversial. There are pros and cons of the electoral college, which makes it.