I would not call it a problem, but one feature of the system is its winner-take-all aspect in the awarding of electoral votes. States can split their votes but only a few states choose to do so.
There are also people who think it would be better to base the election solely on the popular votes and dispense with the electoral college altogether. However, there are good reasons why the electoral college was established by the Constitution and many new problems that would likely arise with a direct election.
Can you please explain to me how the president of the United States of America, can get disqualified? This is not a gameshow, its America.If there is a qualification problem, at this point, the Electoral College will have to address it by not electing him. Later the Supremes and ultimately the US Congress will have to decide but only after he is elected by the College.
electoral college A+
electoral college
The main issue that American citizens would have had (and stil do have) with the Electoral College is that it divorces the election of the US President, the most powerful statesman in the United States, from the actual popular vote. Other issues with the electoral college remain issues today, including: majority take all voting in the electoral college, that electors can completely disregard the popular vote (such as happened in the non-election of Horace Greeley), and there is no oversight of the Electoral College. An additional problem was that the US had not clarified (until the Twelfth Amendment) that the President and Vice President must come on a combined ticket, so this led to many faulting the US Electoral College for making Thomas Jefferson the Vice President for John Adams when the two were ideologically opposed, leading to stagnation within the executive branch.
Some argue that one problem with the electoral college is that it creates an unbalanced distribution of campaign resources. If a state doesn't have very many electoral votes, presidential candidates are less likely to focus on it. Another problem is unequal voting power, depending on where in the country someone lives.
It is unclear what the question is asking.1) Question: By what method would an American citizen in the early days of the republic have complained about the US Electoral College?There are several ways that an American citizen could have complained about the electoral college, such as: protesting; writing his opinion in letters or newspapers; and discussing the issue with his local, state, or federal representatives.2) Question: What issues would an American citizen in the early days of the republic have had with the existence or powers of the US Electoral College?The main issue that American citizens would have had (and stil do have) with the Electoral College is that it divorces the election of the US President, the most powerful statesman in the United States, from the actual popular vote. Other issues with the electoral college remain issues today, including: majority take all voting in the electoral college, that electors can completely disregard the popular vote (such as happened in the non-election of Horace Greeley), and there is no oversight of the Electoral College. An additional problem was that the US had not clarified (until the Twelfth Amendment) that the President and Vice President must come on a combined ticket, so this led to many faulting the US Electoral College for making Thomas Jefferson the Vice President for John Adams when the two were ideologically opposed, leading to stagnation within the executive branch.
The argument for electing the president based upon strictly popular vote is that the president will be elected by the majority vote of the people.The argument for using the electoral college is that it will give more people an equal voice in saying who the president will be.If we do away with the electoral college, candidates will simply concentrate their campaigns in the large population centers, such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and the rest of the country will have almost no voice whatsoever in electing the president. Since all candidates will want to spend their campaign dollars in the most highly concentrated population centers, rural areas and small communities will be without significant influence on the election. Rural areas of the U.S. have different concerns than those issues that urban America faces. If the candidates cater only to the concerns of those people in big cities, much of the citizens will be ignored.The problem with the electoral college as it currently exists is that it is a winner-take-all proposition in most states. For instance, a candidate could win only 51% of the popular vote in California and walk away with all of California's 55 electoral votes. In contrast, another candidate could win 99% of the popular vote in Nevada and only gain 5 electoral votes.It might be better if electoral votes were divided proportionately in all states. That way, the 49% of the citizens who voted for the losing candidate in California in the example above would not be neglected (split 28/27). If this were the case, 5 or 6 small states would be worth fighting for to counter a large state like California.
Yes. For example: At a meeting the votes were cast in a ratio of 16:9 in favour of electing a new president. If there were 275 people voting, how many voted in favour of electing the new president? (The answer is 275/25 * 16 = 176)
The problem of faithless electors would be done away with.
The number of electors is based on the number of house members for the state. Getting the office of president is a math problem and with the right combination of states a person reaches the number of 270 votes.
The popular vote decides who the electors will be. The people elect the electors and the electors elect the President. Furthermore, the electors swear to vote for a particular candidate. The voters know in advance how the electors they choose will vote.
fv The election of 1800 is when Thomas Jefferson was elected as president, marking the shift in power from the Federalist Party to the Republican Party. It is important to note that this was a PEACEFUL transfer of power, and that Federalist policies and ideas still lived on for years.