The controversy can be seen 2 ways. It can been seen in the truth, and in the excuse. The excuse is that the electoral collage is not one vote is one vote. It is a complicated process where you instead of electing the president, you are electing electors who vote for the president. But the truth is simple. When creating the electoral collage, the founding fathers knew that if they created a popular vote to elect a president, big states (like NY and CA today) would dominate the election. All of the candidates would go there, and nobody else mattered. This system was created so that small states can actually play a impact in elections.
To create a buffer between the population and the selected president.
fear of placing too much power in the hands of the people.
Honestly,it seems there is no reason to vote for president,since we are not.They should just say we are voting for somewon to vote for us.i mean,if im wrong somewon please correct me.
To create a buffer between the population and the selected president.
Yes; it happened in 1824. A candidate must have over 50% of the electoral votes to win the electoral college election. Ever since the Election of 1964, that "magic number" has been 270. When nobody has that many, the electoral college no longer has anything to do with the election; the House of Representatives gets the job of electing the President. When that happens, each state gets only one vote, so although there are 435 House Members, no more than 50 votes are cast. The reason that happened in 1824 is that the 3rd- and 4th-place finishers received a total of 30% of the votes. Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes AND the most electoral votes (38%), but the House elected John Quincy Adams President. (Jackson beat Adams four years later.) If no Vice-Presidential candidate has more than 50% of the electoral votes, the Senate elects the Vice President. That happened in 1836, but it wasn't controversial like the 1824 election. The Senate elected the man who was just one vote shy of the required minimum electoral votes.
At the time when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, most U.S. citizens were not very politically knowledgable, and news traveled fairly slowly. The founding fathers created the electoral college so that people who were knowledgable about politics and America's economic standing, etc. were the ones voting and making the smartest decision for the country. However, it is interesting to note that the electoral college, though based off of the number of representatives in Congress, is not proportionally representative of the American people. This, as well as today's citizens being able to be politically knowledgable and faithless electors, has caused debate over whether there should still be an electoral college. However, today's voter turnout and political efficacy are both low, so there is still some reason to keep the electoral college. Anyways, I hope that was helpful!
The US President is chosen by the Electoral College, which is obligated by law to vote according to the results of the popular election in all but two states. The number of Electors for each state is determined by their population as a percentage of the total US population, counted during the last census. For this reason, it is possible for a candidate to win the national popular election, but lose in the electoral college. Electoral members can and HAVE voted for other then the candidate they were sent to support
the congruent side is not corresponding
they were uncomfortable with such a controversial topic
They could but I doubt they ever would. If we went with the popular vote over the electoral college all elections would be over in the first threee hours. Well over half of the population lives east of the Mississippi river so in a popular vote they would overwhelm the rest of the country and there would be no reason for Californians to even go to the polls.
Low population density explains the relatively clean environment in central Asia.
Her activism in support of birth control was the reason she was controversial.