What are some arguments for and against the electoral college?

Answer 1

Arguments for the Electoral College are that:

- it contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president.

- it enhances the status of minority interests.

- it contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system.

- it maintains a federal system of government and representation.

Arguments against the Electoral College are that:

- it diminishes the principle of one vote per person, by giving the population of small states more electoral votes than an equivalent population in a large in a large state would receive

- it can award victory to the candidate who wins the electoral but not the popular vote

- a candidate who wins the electoral but not the popular vote may have a lasting problem of legitimacy as president.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Where you live determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the US Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

It would only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in just the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes! This is somewhat obviated by the current political disagreements between some of these states.

Answer 2

There are only two major effects of the College:

1. It currently affords the higher population states a large degree of the influence they would have if it did not exist. The increased electoral representation of large states means that just the 11 largest could provide victory for any candidate who won them all. Under the College, anything more than a 51% victory is superfluous, so the effect of a landslide popular vote is diminished for a given state.

2. It reinforces the two-party political system. Despite its divisive potential, it has proven to maintain some cohesion across the varied populations of the states. Of course, countries with multi-party systems also mostly have parliamentarian executives without fixed terms of office, so they are difficult to compare.

Answer 3

The electoral college gives more clout to smaller states. If a candidate only needed a simple majority they may only campaign or try to appease larger states or regions of the country. With the Electoral College system any vote for a candidate after the majority has been won in a certain state do not help a candidate. If votes counted over a states majority vote count, larger states would be targeted and paid more attention by candidates.

Currently the large state of California has about 11% of the US population and controls about 10% of the electoral college vote. The small state of Rhode Island has about .3% of the US population but controls a little less then 1% of the electoral college vote.

Answer 4

the main problem between the electoral colleges is they sometimes cant decide which candidate to pick!I HOPE MY ANSWER IS RIGHT BECAUSE I AM IN 4TH GRADE AND WERE LEARNING ABOUT THIS

Answer 5

Third Party nearly impossible

Answer 6

Yes :)

Answer 7

Hc