The Electoral College determines the outcome of US presidential races based on the number of senators and representatives in each state. Critics argue that it can result in a candidate winning the election without winning the popular vote and that it gives more power to states with more electoral votes. Some suggest abolishing it in favor of direct voting or giving electoral college votes proportionally. There are 11 states that can guarantee a victory for a president, making the vote unequal.
The Electoral College is the number of votes, simplified, that determines the outcome of a US presidential race. It is essentially equal to the number of senators in the state and the number of representatives in the house. The more districts and House Representatives a state has, the more “votes” it represents in the electoral college. Big states have a huge number of votes to cast. California has 55, for example, and Texas has 34. Once the popular vote has been cast, the candidate who receives the majority of votes in a state receives all the electoral votes for that state. States with votes above 20 for the electoral college are usually called swing states.
There are a number of criticisms of this electoral process. The main one is that vote disbursement may not always accurately represent the popular vote. Several presidential elections, most notably Bush vs. Gore in 2000, have resulted in a candidate not winning the election but winning the popular vote. Gore was voted president by the people, but thanks to the electoral college, Bush won key states and received more electoral votes.
Some also believe that states with more electoral votes have greater power, reducing the influence of the individual voter. If you live in Montana, the president you vote for only gets three votes from the College. Voters in states with higher numbers of Electoral College representatives are argued to receive more attention from candidates and have a disproportionate influence on presidential elections.
Conversely, some argue that candidates pay attention to a state only if they don’t feel confident in carrying on the state. California, for example, often thought of as a blue or Democratic state, can be ignored except in urban areas by Democratic candidates since they’re pretty sure they’ll win the state. This gives voters fewer opportunities to hear various politicians’ thoughts on how they might run.
There are basically 11 states that can guarantee a victory for a president, meaning candidates can essentially ignore the other 39. If a candidate is able to win the electoral votes of these 11 states, he doesn’t need to win the vote. popular elsewhere. It is argued that these states have much greater power and that the vote is therefore unequal.
There are some theories on how these problems can be addressed. The first is to completely abolish the Electoral College in favor of electing presidents by direct vote. Let people vote, count totals, and see who won. Some believe this would unfairly represent urban areas as they have more residents than rural areas. This argument seems specious. Each person would have to count the full weight of their vote in such an election.
Another possibility would be to give electoral college votes in a state proportionally and on a percentage basis. If a candidate won 45% of the vote in a state, he would receive 45% of the electoral college vote. There may be some difficulty splitting electoral votes in an odd-numbered state if the candidates both win 50% of the vote. It’s hard to know if a candidate could win half an electoral vote.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
