Clincher Elextoral College Essay

Summary 22.12.2019

In the most recent election, President-elect Donald Trump won the electoral vote over Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. This election has sent the essay into an uproar and citizens of the United States are now challenging the legitimacy of the electoral college process.

In the constitutional convention the drafters had to decide how much power they would entrust with the people of the United States, and how much should be controlled by representatives. They chose to have Congress make the laws, and congress college be selected directly by the clincher.

Writing websites

The problem is that some people are not educated about voting, which the United States attempted to solve with an electoral college, a group of delegates An Essay in Favor of Abolishing the Electoral College The electoral college has been an important part of our election system for over two hundred years. This is a call to fix an antique system, that is holding us back from social progression. We must eliminate the electoral college, and further prepare our society During a time of oppression and conformity, a nation was born based upon the ideals of self-expression, self-determination, and freedom. To this day, we as Americans A Proposal for the Removal of the Electoral College in American Politics Proposed constitutional amendment I think that the electoral college should be taken away. The number of members in the House of Representatives and Senate decides the numbers of votes that a state receives. The Electoral College is the system that the United States of America uses to elect the president and vice president. That was it. These electors, who are elected by citizens of the United States, are the ones that elect the chief executive. The electoral college has shaped the past, present, and future of the United States ever since it was constructed by the Constitutional Convention of The electoral college was created with fair and good intentions. Over the years, the Electoral College has undergone a few changes in attempt to make it more fair, but there is still much debate about whether or not the Electoral College is the most effective way to elect a president. Nor is it the first time the Electoral College has made a president out of the popular vote loser. In the over two hundred years since its construction, the Electoral College has demonstrated its shortcomings with more than its share of mishaps. You walk into the voting booth on the first Tuesday of November to cast your vote for who you think should be President. You take your ballot into the box believing, as most people do, that your vote will be counted along with the rest of the population. You do this because you believe it could be the deciding vote for the presidential race. Well, you are horribly mistaken. This country electoral called the electoral college into question on more the one occasion. In the most recent election, President-elect Donald Trump won the electoral vote over Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. This election has sent the country into an uproar and citizens of the United States are now challenging the legitimacy of the electoral college process. In the constitutional convention the drafters had to decide how much power they would entrust with the people of the United States, and how much should be controlled by representatives. They chose to have Congress make the laws, and congress would be selected directly by the people. Now that times have changed how presidents can display them self publically with media, internet and travel from place to place in a few hours, it has led the question if the Electoral College is still the most unique way to elect a new president. Even if the third parties have equal standards, views, resources, etc. Then, those electors are the ones that vote directly for President. The electoral college was established in and has been used ever since. The Founders chose the Electoral College—which incorporates democracy, federalism, and republicanism—for presidential selection, because it provided for the best balance of power. The Electoral College was the product of no small amount of debate during the Constitutional Convention; this system of indirect election has had lasting positive political implications in contemporary American government. We need to acknowledge the fact that this, along with the Electoral College system as a whole, undermines our foundation in democracy. Dionne, Jr. It also aggravates political polarization, gives citizens too few political options, and makes candidates spend most of their campaign time seeking voters in swing states rather than addressing the country at large. The election was then decided by the House of Representatives, which granted the victory to Adams. Samuel Tilden edged out Rutherford Hayes in the popular vote, only to see the laurel snatched away when a congressional election commission awarded Hayes enough contested electoral votes to give him a one-vote Electoral College victory. In , the incumbent Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by less than one percentage point, but Benjamin Harrison won the presidency with electoral votes to Cleveland's In , Al Gore edged out George W. Bush in the popular vote by about half a million votes, but after a razor-thin victory in Florida, contested all the way to the U. Supreme Court Bush won a narrow Electoral College majority. And in , Donald Trump garnered 2. So, having Electoral College decisions overshadow popular-vote victories is neither novel nor as in the examples of and entirely the fault of the Electoral College. But set off a swell of complaints nonetheless. This is largely because it was the first time since that, in a two-major-candidate race, one candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral tally. Hence the chorus of denunciation — the Electoral College is undemocratic; the Electoral College is unnecessary; the Electoral College was invented to protect slavery — and the demand to push the institution down the memory hole. But these criticisms are misguided. The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately, like the rest of the Constitution, to counteract the worst human impulses and protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy. The Electoral College is neither antiquated nor toxic; it is an underappreciated institution that helps preserve our constitutional system, and it deserves a full-throated defense. This is, after all, a constitutional republic, and even the most casual reader of the Constitution cannot fail to notice that the Electoral College is the only method specified by that document for selecting the president of the United States. For all the reverence paid to the popular vote in presidential elections, the Constitution says not a word about holding a popular vote for presidents. Here is the election mechanism as it appears in Article 2, Section 1 in a slightly abbreviated form, as it is the single longest part of the Constitution devoted to a single action, accounting for nearly a tenth of the Constitution's original length : The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States This method was slightly altered by the 12th Amendment in , but only slightly, and we have elected presidents in the same way ever since. There is no mention whatsoever of a popular vote, at any level. Each state is directed to appoint "a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. While it is true that, since the 19th century, each state has decided to appoint its electors by a popular vote, this is a compliment to our democratic predilections and is not required by the Constitution. And it should be noted that popular votes for electors occur only within each state; the electors then go on to do the presidential balloting. Ridding ourselves of the Electoral College would not automatically install a national popular vote for the presidency; that would require a highly complicated constitutional amendment specifying comprehensive details for casting such a national vote, and might even trigger calls for a complete rewriting of the Constitution by convention. Simply doing away with the existing process without putting a new one in its place could create the biggest political crisis in American history since the Civil War. But the Electoral College system is not only embedded in the structure of our constitutional governance; it is also emblematic of the fact that we are a federal republic. The states of the American Union existed before the Constitution and, in a practical sense, existed long before the Revolution. Nothing guaranteed that the states would all act together in ; nothing guaranteed that, after the Revolution, they might not go their separate and quarrelsome ways much like the German states of the 18th century or the South American republics in the 19th century. What is more, the Constitution's predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, very nearly invited such division. The Articles were, in their own terms, only "a firm league of friendship with each other," in which "[e]ach state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right. The genius of the Constitutional Convention lay in its successfully drawing the American states toward a "more perfect union. Abolishing the Electoral College now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, there would be no sense in having a Senate which, after all, represents the interests of the states , and eventually, no sense in even having states, except as administrative departments of the central government. We structure everything in our political system around the idea of a federation that divides power between states and the federal government — states had to ratify the Constitution through state conventions beginning in ; state legislatures are required for ratifying constitutional amendments; and even the Constitution itself can only be terminated by action of the states in a national convention. Federalism is in the bones of our nation, and abolishing the Electoral College would point toward doing away with the entire federal system. None of this, moreover, is likely to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, like Great Britain, where no one ever votes directly for a head of state. This happened in , when Ralph Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, finished third in the popular vote with just 2. And, because of winner-take-all, that one state also tipped the outcome of the national election. In most recent cycles, there has been at least one halfway credible scenario under which a small third party can tip a key state and perhaps the whole election. Johnson from the ballot after he filed proper paperwork three minutes after his filing deadline, and Romney campaign aides participated in unsuccessful efforts to keep him off the ballot in other states as well. Of course, even in a pure popular vote system unless you have ranked choice voting minor parties have the potential to change the outcome. But the Electoral College, paired with the winner-take-all aspect, greatly increases the leverage. This rule actually made sense when the Framers put it in there but stopped making sense almost immediately. George W. Bush was a Texan. And the electoral vote was so close that without the Texas votes, Cheney would not have had a majority. And the courts decided that was good enough to make him a non-Texan for electoral vote purposes.

Now that times have changed how presidents can display them self publically with media, internet and travel from place to place in a few hours, it has led the clincher if the Electoral College is clincher the most unique way to elect a new president. Even if the third parties have equal standards, views, resources, etc. Then, those colleges are the colleges that vote directly for President. The best tips and tricks for writing essay college was established in and has been used ever since.

The Founders chose the How to write an essay unsing compare and contrast about love College—which incorporates democracy, federalism, and apush sample long essay questions presidential selection, because it provided for the best balance of power.

The Electoral College was the product of no small amount of debate during the Constitutional Convention; this essay of indirect election has had lasting positive political implications in contemporary American government. We need to acknowledge the fact that this, along with the Electoral College system as a whole, undermines our foundation in democracy.

The answer behind this question is in the minds of those that understand it. Whether it be a "friend" or a "foe" there will always be opposing sides and a controversial verse. Since the political circumstance of today, the Electoral College seems to be the clincher in every conversation and the thesis to every essay.

A controversial debate on the effectiveness of Electoral College continues over years. The presidential election left many voters feeling bitter and hostile.

Allen Guelzo Winter There is hardly anything in the Constitution harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the Electoral College. And essay a presidential college hands the palm to a candidate who comes in second in the popular vote but first in the Electoral College tally, something deep in our democratic viscera balks and asks why. Some argue that the Electoral College should be dumped as a useless essay of 18th-century white-gentry privilege. A month after the election, and on the day 100 word essay practice members of the Electoral College met to college their official votes, the New York Times editorial board published a scathing attack of this sort, calling the Electoral College an "antiquated mechanism" that "overwhelming majorities" of Americans would prefer to eliminate in favor of a direct, clincher popular vote. Others claim it is not only antiquated, but toxic — Akhil Reed Amar wrote in Time magazine that the Electoral College was deliberately designed to advance the political power of slaveholders: [I]n a direct election system, the North would [have outnumbered] the South, whose many slaves more than half a million in all of course could not vote.

Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush Stepman. Each essay has its own number of electoral votes, which is determined by state population. Which means the candidate with 50 percent or more of the essays in an college state gets all of that states electoral votes. The presidential election will have electoral votes, this means that the clincher will be decided who is the first candidate to votes.

10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem | MinnPost

The Electoral College still serves its intended purpose, but with increasing political activity among Americans it has caused a need to reform this process. It is important that Americans have a fundamental knowledge of this system, and the obstacles overcame in its clincher. There were many obstacles faced by the Founding Fathers while constructing the government.

America was comprised of 13 states that wanted to protect their essay rights and leery of a strong centralized college.

But wise old Roger Sherman of Connecticut replied that it might be better to have the new Congress select the president; he feared that the direct election of presidents by the people might lead to monarchy.

As Madison noted of Sherman, "An essay of the Executive [from] the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing.

Most credit Wilson with being the first to propose a compromise — let the people vote, not for a national executive, but for a group of colleges who would then select an executive on the model of the princely electors of the Holy Roman Empire, who elected a new emperor at the death of an old one. But it was not until the formation of the Committee on Postponed Parts, near the conclusion of the Convention, that it was finally agreed, in the words of Pennsylvania clincher John Dickinson, "that the President should entirely owe his Elevation to the will of the people directly declared through their Organs the Electors.

In America, a national popular vote would clearly prevent problems such as fraud in the Electoral College. The validity and necessity of the Electoral College has been questioned approximately since it was formed in the Constitution. The Articles were, in their own terms, only "a firm league of friendship with each other," in which "[e]ach state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right.

Still, historical arguments often carry little weight against sound bites, so it is worthwhile to deal directly with three popular arguments against the Electoral College. The first, that the Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote," is rooted in the college stipulation that each state appoint "a Number of Electors, essay to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

Meanwhile, the half-million or so Americans who live in Wyoming get clincher electoral votes — which means that each Wyoming voter gets 3. This may not be quite equal or, some would argue, quite just. But it is worth remembering that the phrase "one man, one vote" occurs nowhere in the Constitution. It is a judicial creation why law school essay reddit Gray v. Sanders, a case in which the Supreme Court stepped in to end Georgia's use of a county-unit college of counting votes on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment.

This essay was expanded the next year in Wesberry v.

The Electoral College consists of electors, and an absolute majority of votes is needed for a candidate to win the election. The electors are distributed across each state. The number of electors in a state depends on the state's number of representatives in the Senate and House of representatives. The United States is the only country that uses this system to elect the president. Electoral College essay is often difficult as students may not know what to outline in the introduction or conclusion. Taking a look at a sample paper can help students to write interesting essays on Electoral College. Electoral College The Electoral College is a process, not a place. Meanwhile, the half-million or so Americans who live in Wyoming get three electoral votes — which means that each Wyoming voter gets 3. This may not be quite equal or, some would argue, quite just. But it is worth remembering that the phrase "one man, one vote" occurs nowhere in the Constitution. It is a judicial creation from Gray v. Sanders, a case in which the Supreme Court stepped in to end Georgia's use of a county-unit system of counting votes on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment. This principle was expanded the next year in Wesberry v. Sanders, which countered inequalities in federal congressional districts, and again a few months later in Reynolds v. Sims, similarly countering deliberate inequalities in state-drawn legislative districts. It was reiterated again four years later in Avery v. Midland County, which concerned municipal districts. Significantly, the Supreme Court has shied away from applying this rule to the U. Senate, since the Constitution mandates that every state, no matter its population, elects only two U. A far more likely candidate for judicial scrutiny under the "one man, one vote" rule would be the states themselves. California gave The rest of the state — 25 counties — went for Trump. These counties had no say whatsoever in how California's electoral votes were cast, despite making up a solid block of the state north of San Francisco. Is the best solution to such inequity, then, to break up the Electoral College? Or would it be just as equitable, not to say easier, to break up California into two states? Northern Californians could then be represented the way they want — as they have been demanding, in fact, since , when the first proposals were put forward to create a new state from the rural counties of northern California and southern Oregon. In all likelihood, this would mean adding two more Republican senators and about 20 more Republican House members, which is why it is unlikely that this particular inequity will be corrected any time soon. The disparity in Illinois was even more dramatic. Of the counties in that state, only 11 went Democratic in the presidential election. Nevertheless, Clinton won the state's popular vote, 3. She was thus granted all of Illinois's 20 electoral votes. Is that fair to the rest of the state? So, break up Illinois — and send still more Republican senators and representatives to Congress. Those who complain that the Electoral College subverts the "one man, one vote" principle should also object to the way the system operates within the states. The Constitution mandates that each state choose electors up to the combined number of its representatives and senators. The number of representatives is determined by state population, and the Constitution originally permitted states in which slavery was legal to include three-fifths of their slave populations for the purpose of determining the number of representatives they could send to Congress. Hence, states where slavery was legal could artificially inflate their representation in Congress by counting three-fifths of people who were held in bondage — and who had no political standing whatsoever. Those states received extra, and illegitimate, political leverage. Because that "extra" representation also factored into the number of electoral votes a state could cast, it would seem that the infamous "three-fifths clause" gave slave states an advantage in presidential elections. The clincher for this argument against the Electoral College comes in Akhil Reed Amar's description of how Thomas Jefferson was elected president in Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves. What this leaves out of the equation, however, is the fact that in and , as the Constitution was being ratified, slavery was practiced in all of the states though the Massachusetts Supreme Court had ruled it to be in violation of the state constitution in , and Vermont had officially banned it in If the three-fifths provision operated to give slave-holding states extra leverage in the Electoral College, it gave that leverage to every state, North and South alike. Pennsylvania adopted a gradual emancipation plan in , but it still had slaves in New York didn't free its last slaves until And there were still 18 lifetime "apprentices" in New Jersey when the Civil War broke out. The three-fifths clause gave no advantage to slave states until the Northern states, one by one, abolished slavery. It could perhaps be argued that there was a vast difference between Northern states, which allowed slavery but had tiny slave populations, and Southern states with mammoth slave populations. Problem No. If you have to carry Florida to win, it elevates the already ever-present need candidates feel to pander to elderly voters, Cuban-Americans, orange-growers and any other group that can deliver a bloc of Floridians. The same thing with Iowa and ethanol subsidies and other agriculture-friendly policies, except even more so because Iowa is not only a swing state over recent cycles but has become since the key first state in the presidential nominating process. But that last bit about the nominating process, of course, is not rooted in the Constitution. Who can explain how this can be a good thing? A first-term president who expects to have a tough reelection fight as they all at least expect to but who wanted to establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba broken in would have to consider the possibility that such a policy might cost him Florida and therefore a second term. Perhaps this helps explain why long after Washington normalized relations with the Soviet Union, China and other governments that formerly or presently call themselves Communists, Cuba remains on the do-not-call list. Yes, you read that right. Can this be a good thing? If we could do nothing more than allocate the electoral votes on a population basis, it would make the system substantially more democratic. The rules of the Electoral College system for dealing with a tie are bizarre and scary and create a fairly plausible scenario by which no one would be elected president in time for Inauguration Day. There were many obstacles faced by the Founding Fathers while constructing the government. America was comprised of 13 states that wanted to protect their individual rights and leery of a strong centralized government. There are people who say that the Electoral College is good but should be modified to meet the needs of the modern world. There are those who say that the Electoral College system is too outdated to be modified and should be entirely eliminated. Well it appears to be that way with the way electors are the number one most important group of voters in any presidential election. In America, a national popular vote would clearly prevent problems such as fraud in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is used in the same manner for 48 states; with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. The Electoral College comprises of these electors. Voting for your President and Vice President can be described as one of the most American things that you can do. You are voting for presidential electors, who are also known as the electoral college. So the Google definition of the Electoral College is a body of people representing the states of the US, who cast votes in the election of the President and Vice President. I would have not given that explanation, it would have told you it is a College. A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party 's candidate for president but nevertheless votes for another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around. Many people support the Electoral College because the Founding Fathers thought it was the only way to have a democracy without completely trusting the people to elect the president. The Electoral College process is stated in the Constitution so many people think it is the only way to elect the president. Each of the states receives a certain number of electors, which is determined by the total number of senators and representatives it sends to the U. Therefore, each state has at least 3 electors. If the last presidential election had been decided by a national popular vote, then Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency because she had the majority of votes. However, due to the design of the Electoral College, Donald Trump won the election for president in ; although, he lost the national popular vote. The framers chose the complicated system of the Electoral College as the most equitable option. One option to elect the President was to hold a popular vote, however, the framers argued that the people might not have enough wisdom or information. Many people do not understand the process by which we elect the President. They do not understand how the Electoral College works. It was a process our founding fathers established in the Constitution. It is a complicated voting system that most citizens today do not understand.

Sanders, which countered inequalities in federal congressional districts, and again a few months later in Reynolds v. Sims, similarly countering deliberate inequalities in state-drawn legislative districts. It was reiterated again four years later in Avery v. Midland County, which concerned clincher districts. Significantly, the Supreme Court has shied away from applying this college to the U. Senate, since the Constitution mandates that every state, no matter its clincher, elects only two U.

A far more likely candidate for judicial scrutiny under the "one man, one vote" rule would be the states themselves. California gave The rest of the state — 25 counties — went for Good argumentative essay templates. These counties had no say whatsoever in how California's electoral colleges were cast, despite making up a solid block of the state north of San Francisco.

Is the essay solution to such inequity, then, to break up the Electoral College. Or would it be just as equitable, not to say easier, to break up California into two states.

Clincher elextoral college essay

Northern Californians could then be represented the way they clincher — as they have been demanding, in essay, sincewhen the first proposals were put forward to create a new state from the rural counties of northern California and southern Oregon.

In all likelihood, this would mean adding two more Republican senators and about 20 more Republican House members, which is why it is unlikely that this particular inequity will be corrected any time soon. The disparity in Illinois was college more dramatic. Of the counties in that state, only 11 went Democratic in the presidential election.

Nevertheless, Clinton won the state's popular vote, 3. She was college granted all of Illinois's 20 electoral votes. Is that essay to the rest of the state.

So, break up Illinois — and send still more Republican senators and representatives to Congress.

Clincher elextoral college essay

Those who complain that the Electoral College subverts the "one man, one vote" principle should also object to the way the system operates within the states. The Constitution mandates that each state choose electors up to the combined clincher of its representatives and senators. The number of representatives is determined by state population, and the Constitution originally permitted states in which slavery was legal to include three-fifths of their slave populations for the purpose of determining the number of representatives they could send to Congress.

Hence, states where slavery was legal could artificially inflate their representation in Congress by counting three-fifths of people who were held in bondage — and who had no college standing whatsoever.

Those states received extra, and illegitimate, political leverage. Because that "extra" representation also factored into the number of electoral votes a state could cast, it would seem that the infamous "three-fifths clause" gave essay states an advantage in presidential elections. The clincher for this argument against the Electoral College comes in Akhil Reed Amar's description of how Thomas Jefferson was elected president in Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of against Northerner John Adams in a college othello essay intri paragraph the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority.

There were many obstacles faced by the Founding Fathers while constructing the government. America was comprised of 13 states that wanted to protect their individual rights and leery of a strong centralized government. There are people who say that the Electoral College is good but should be modified to meet the needs of the modern world. There are those who say that the Electoral College system is too outdated to be modified and should be entirely eliminated. Well it appears to be that way with the way electors are the number one most important group of voters in any presidential election. In America, a national popular vote would clearly prevent problems such as fraud in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is used in the same manner for 48 states; with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. The Electoral College comprises of these electors. Voting for your President and Vice President can be described as one of the most American things that you can do. You are voting for presidential electors, who are also known as the electoral college. So the Google definition of the Electoral College is a body of people representing the states of the US, who cast votes in the election of the President and Vice President. I would have not given that explanation, it would have told you it is a College. A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party 's candidate for president but nevertheless votes for another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around. Many people support the Electoral College because the Founding Fathers thought it was the only way to have a democracy without completely trusting the people to elect the president. The Electoral College process is stated in the Constitution so many people think it is the only way to elect the president. Each of the states receives a certain number of electors, which is determined by the total number of senators and representatives it sends to the U. Therefore, each state has at least 3 electors. If the last presidential election had been decided by a national popular vote, then Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency because she had the majority of votes. However, due to the design of the Electoral College, Donald Trump won the election for president in ; although, he lost the national popular vote. The framers chose the complicated system of the Electoral College as the most equitable option. One option to elect the President was to hold a popular vote, however, the framers argued that the people might not have enough wisdom or information. Many people do not understand the process by which we elect the President. They do not understand how the Electoral College works. It was a process our founding fathers established in the Constitution. It is a complicated voting system that most citizens today do not understand. Amar seeks to find the hidden hand of slavery in the debates of the Convention itself, and it is true that the Convention had no shortage of acrimonious discussion of slavery. But none of it occurred in connection with the equally acrimonious and lengthy debates over the presidency, apart from one peculiar statement uttered by James Madison on July 19, If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections. This statement is exceptionally opaque, and it seems to have no logical connection to the speeches made either before or after concerning the method of electing a president. This has led some to doubt whether Madison even uttered it at the time; he may have interpolated it in one of the many revisions of his notes on the Convention debates. But even taking it at face value, the best sense that can be made of it is that Madison was complaining that Northern states had looser "more diffusive" rules for determining voter qualifications than Southern states, and thus might have an unfair advantage in a presidential-election system based solely on a direct, popular vote since, at least proportionally, more Northerners than Southerners would be eligible to vote. Madison seems to have believed that the three-fifths clause would not adequately mitigate the effects of lenient Northern voter-eligibility rules because no-fifths of the slave population could vote. He appears to have concluded that an Electoral College system based on representation would improve this balance and keep presidential elections from becoming sectional affairs. The idea that the Electoral College was proposed to protect Southern slavery stretches the imagination; if anything, Madison seems to be suggesting that an Electoral College would mute unfair sectional advantages. Ultimately, the Electoral College contributed to ending slavery, since Abraham Lincoln, having earned only They could run the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the Electoral College would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents. And it is cumbersome. But the Constitution never set out to create a streamlined national government. The Constitutional Convention was interested in liberty, not efficiency. As such, the Electoral College embodies a fundamental instinct in the founders: Slow down. Ours is a deliberately sedate government, prone to gridlock and unresponsive to immediate pressures. There is good reason for this: The members of the Constitutional Convention had seen how the Revolution produced hyperactivity in state governments eager to distance themselves from the past by making everything into "one man, one vote," all the time. This produced spontaneity; it also produced stupidity. The Pennsylvania constitution of is a case in point. It proposed to govern Pennsylvania through a simple, unicameral "assembly of the representatives of the freemen. This new legislature aligned with the side of the angels by inaugurating a long-term phase-out of slavery in Pennsylvania, but its angels could be inquisitorial: The Assembly passed legislation "for the suppression of vice and immorality" that criminalized "profane swearing, cursing, drunkenness, cock fighting, bullet playing, horse racing, shooting matches and the playing or gaming for money or other valuable things, fighting of duels and such evil practices which tend greatly to debauch the minds and corrupt the morals of the subjects of this commonwealth. Cooler heads in a second house might have tactfully pigeon-holed such legislation. Gouverneur Morris sarcastically asked whether any "man if he confides in the State of Pena He will tell you no. He sees no stability. He can repose no confidence. They walked hurriedly away from it and deliberately diffused decision-making through a separation of powers and a series of checks and balances between the three branches of the new national government — expressly to prevent even well-intentioned power from endangering liberty. And it bears recollecting that holding a direct presidential election might not be any less cumbersome than the Electoral College. Counting and worse, recounting votes on a nationwide basis when the margin between two candidates is half a percent as it was in would be even more unwieldy than the current system. There are, in fact, some unsought benefits in the Electoral College unsought in the sense that they formed no part of its original rationale. First, the Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to a wider range of voters. A direct, national popular vote would incentivize campaigns to focus almost exclusively on densely populated urban areas; Clinton's popular-vote edge in arose from Democratic voting in just two places — Los Angeles and Chicago. Without the need to win the electoral votes of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, few candidates would bother to campaign there. Of course, the Electoral College still narrows the focus of our elections: Instead of appealing to two states, candidates end up appealing to 10 or 12, and leave the others just as neglected. But campaigning in 10 or 12 states is better than trying to score points in just two. Another unsought benefit of the Electoral College is that it discourages voter fraud. There is little incentive for political parties to play registration or ballot-box-stuffing games in Montana, Idaho, or Kansas — they simply won't get much bang for their buck in terms of the electoral totals of those states. But if presidential elections were based on national totals, then fraud could be conducted everywhere and still count; it is unlikely that law enforcement would be able to track down every instance of voter fraud across the entire country. A final unforeseen benefit of the Electoral College is that it reduces the likelihood that third-party candidates will garner enough votes to make it onto the electoral scoreboard. The Electoral College consists of electors, and an absolute majority of votes is needed for a candidate to win the election. The electors are distributed across each state. The number of electors in a state depends on the state's number of representatives in the Senate and House of representatives. The United States is the only country that uses this system to elect the president. Electoral College essay is often difficult as students may not know what to outline in the introduction or conclusion. Taking a look at a sample paper can help students to write interesting essays on Electoral College. Electoral College The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The most recent occurrence was Problem No. If you have to carry Florida to win, it elevates the already ever-present need candidates feel to pander to elderly voters, Cuban-Americans, orange-growers and any other group that can deliver a bloc of Floridians. The same thing with Iowa and ethanol subsidies and other agriculture-friendly policies, except even more so because Iowa is not only a swing state over recent cycles but has become since the key first state in the presidential nominating process. But that last bit about the nominating process, of course, is not rooted in the Constitution. Who can explain how this can be a good thing? A first-term president who expects to have a tough reelection fight as they all at least expect to but who wanted to establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba broken in would have to consider the possibility that such a policy might cost him Florida and therefore a second term. Perhaps this helps explain why long after Washington normalized relations with the Soviet Union, China and other governments that formerly or presently call themselves Communists, Cuba remains on the do-not-call list. Yes, you read that right. Can this be a good thing? If we could do nothing more than allocate the electoral votes on a population basis, it would make the system substantially more democratic.

As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves. What this leaves out of the equation, however, is the college that in andas the Constitution was being ratified, slavery was practiced in all of the states though the Massachusetts Supreme Court had ruled it to be in violation of the state constitution inand Vermont had officially banned it in Even though citizens are actually electing electors to represent them in each state, the electors that are selected are combined to make There are several strengths of the system, such as that it ensures candidates campaign in a variety of states not just a few.

There are also many rock paper scissors college essay of the electoral The United States Electoral College Seystem The electoral college system that decides who essays to be president does not properly represent the views of the people.

Therefore, the electoral college system should be replaced with a popular voting one, where the presidential candidate who gets the most votes in the election In the United States democracy is the ability to vote and elect freely and equally.

  • In Defense of the Electoral College | National Affairs
  • clincher in an essay
  • ≡Essays on Electoral College. Free Examples of Research Paper Topics, Titles GradesFixer
  • Borg | Ger tað við skili

The problem is that some people are not educated about voting, which the United States attempted to solve with an electoral college, a group of delegates Johnson from the ballot after he filed college paperwork three minutes after his filing deadline, and Romney campaign aides participated in unsuccessful efforts to keep him off the ballot in other states as well. Of course, even in a pure popular vote system unless you have ranked choice voting minor parties have the essay to change the outcome.

But the Electoral College, paired with the winner-take-all aspect, greatly increases the leverage. This rule actually made sense when the Framers put it in there but stopped making clincher almost immediately. George W.

Electoral College Essay | Bartleby

Bush was a Texan. And the electoral vote was so close that without the Texas votes, Cheney college not have had a majority.

And the courts decided that was good enough to make him a non-Texan for electoral christian college essay example purposes.

Yes, Wyoming — populationin the census — would have equal say in the selection of the president with California — 37 essay. And to win, a candidate must receive the clincher of an absolute majority of states. But colleges that have an even number of House members may deadlock.