last posts

The Electoral College is a threat to democracy

The Electoral College is one of the most controversial aspects of the American political system. This system, which was originally established in the late 18th century, has been increasingly criticized in recent years due to its potential to threaten the democratic process. Recently, Jamie Raskin, a Maryland congressman, has gone on record to assert that the Electoral College is indeed a threat to democracy. His views are shared by many and this blog post will explain why the Electoral College is a threat to democracy.

why is the electoral college good for democracy,why is the electoral college important,cons of the electoral college,is the electoral college democratic,how does the electoral college work,pros and cons of electoral college,electoral college representation,why is the electoral college undemocratic quizlet

The Electoral College was created to keep power in the hands of white men

When the Founding Fathers of the United States drafted the Constitution, they wanted to ensure that the power of the government remained in the hands of white men. To achieve this, they created a system of electing the President of the United States called the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a way to maintain power among the wealthy white men who had traditionally held positions of power in American society. Through the Electoral College, these powerful individuals could ensure that their chosen candidate won the election without having to worry about what other citizens thought.

Under this system, the President of the United States is chosen by electors, or representatives, who are chosen by the state legislatures. These electors then cast their votes for the President, with the candidate who receives the majority of electoral votes winning the election.

The Electoral College, while originally intended to give more power to white men, now works against democracy by creating an unfair advantage for certain political parties and candidates. This system of voting makes it more difficult for third-party candidates to win because they have less access to resources than larger political parties. Additionally, the Electoral College creates an incentive for candidates to cheat in order to win more votes. By manipulating results in certain states, candidates can sway the outcome of an election and gain an unfair advantage over their opponents. 

The creation of the Electoral College was a deliberate attempt by wealthy white men to maintain power in a young nation, and its continued existence threatens democracy in America.

The Electoral College makes it harder for third-party candidates to win

Third-party candidates have long been disadvantaged by the Electoral College system. This is because they must win the majority of votes in each state in order to win any electoral votes. This is an extremely difficult task, as most states are dominated by two major parties, making it hard for a third-party to gain enough support and recognition.

Additionally, the winner-take-all system that most states use, where all electoral votes go to the candidate with the most votes, makes it almost impossible for third-party candidates to win. This system prevents voters who may be in the minority in a particular state from having their voices heard.

Finally, the Electoral College has a built-in bias against third-party candidates due to its emphasis on winning individual states rather than the popular vote. This means that even if a third-party candidate were to gain substantial support nationwide, it would still be extremely difficult for them to win, since they would need to win a majority of states. 

In sum, the Electoral College makes it difficult for third-party candidates to win, as it favors established two-party systems and puts an emphasis on winning individual states rather than the national popular vote.

The Electoral College makes it easier for candidates to cheat

The Electoral College allows candidates to focus their campaigns on winning a few key swing states rather than appealing to voters in all 50 states. This means that a candidate can theoretically win the election without gaining a majority of the popular vote. This has been done twice in the past 20 years, most recently in 2016 when Donald Trump won the electoral college despite receiving 2.9 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

The fact that candidates can manipulate the system and win without appealing to the majority of voters makes it easier for them to cheat. Candidates have been known to engage in strategic campaigning—for example, campaigning heavily in swing states while ignoring other states—in order to maximize their chances of winning. This kind of manipulation erodes faith in the electoral process and undermines democracy.

The Electoral College gives an unfair advantage to small states

When the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, they did so with the intention of giving small states more representation in the election of the president. The Electoral College works by allocating a certain number of electoral votes to each state based on its population, with each state getting at least three. As a result, smaller states, like Wyoming and Vermont, have disproportionate representation in the Electoral College relative to their populations.

This can lead to scenarios where small states have a greater say in the outcome of the presidential election than larger states. For example, in 2016, Wyoming had just over 500,000 residents but three electoral votes – equal to 1 electoral vote for every 167,000 people. In contrast, California had 39 million residents and 55 electoral votes – equal to 1 electoral vote for every 708,000 people. This means that Wyoming’s three electoral votes were worth nearly four times as much as California’s 55 electoral votes.

Small states are not the only ones to benefit from this system; it also disproportionately benefits swing states with smaller populations. In 2016, for example, Florida had 29 electoral votes – equal to one vote for every 554,000 people – while Ohio had 18 electoral votes – equal to one vote for every 454,000 people. This gives swing states like Florida and Ohio an advantage over other states when it comes to influencing the outcome of the election.

Ultimately, the Electoral College gives an unfair advantage to small states and swing states, allowing them to have a disproportionate say in the election of the president. This system is outdated and should be reformed to ensure that all citizens have an equal say in the election process.

The Electoral College is a barrier to progress

The Electoral College has become a major obstacle to progressive political goals in the United States. By allowing the winner of the popular vote to be overruled by a select few, the Electoral College system favors candidates who are opposed to progress and reform. This is because states with larger populations tend to lean more heavily Democratic, while smaller states lean more heavily Republican. As a result, the candidate with the most votes can still lose the election if they don’t win a majority of electoral votes. 

The system also makes it difficult for third-party candidates to gain traction. Since they don’t have the same resources as major-party candidates, they often struggle to win in swing states where the electorate is more divided. This makes it very difficult for voters who identify as something other than Democrat or Republican to have their voices heard. 

The Electoral College is also susceptible to corruption and cheating. In some cases, the outcome of the election can be swayed by a small number of electorates who cast their ballots for a different candidate than their state voted for. This kind of manipulation is made easier by the Electoral College system, which gives an unfair advantage to certain states or districts. 

It’s clear that the Electoral College is a major barrier to progress and reform in the United States. It creates an uneven playing field and gives too much power to a select few who may not have the best interests of the people in mind. By eliminating the Electoral College, we can make sure that every vote counts and that the will of the people is accurately represented in our elections.


Font Size
lines height