“The electoral college should be replaced by a national popular vote.” Discuss (45) The Electoral College is an institution that was established by the founding Fathers to elect the President of the United States indirectly. The Electoral College is a system that should be abolished and replaced by direct election through a national popular vote. Supporters of the national popular vote make convincing arguments that it is the best system to decide the Presidential election in a society as vast as the United States. However, there are arguments that suggest the Electoral College should not be replaced by a national popular vote. When evaluating the arguments raised on both sides it I believe that the Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote.
When a presidential election occurs it is the Electoral College’s votes that truly pick the next president. Although the representative does have the same views as the popular opinion of the state representatives can vote how they choose. Hence, Bush was reelected. Source: howstuffworks.com 6. Civil Liberties: Basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the constitution.
50% + 1 = 270 votes • What if no candidate has a majority? The House of Representatives determines who the next President will be. Each state may cast one vote and an absolute majority is needed to win. Similarly, the Senate decides who the next Vice President will be. • What is the purpose of the popular vote?
The organization also publishes a monthly magazine known as the "Multinational Monitor." In 2001, Ralph Nader started up another non-profit organization known as Democracy Rising. This organization was dedicated to ending the War in Iraq, and bringing the troops back to America. The political opinions that Ralph Nader is so well known for would make him one of the highest rated presidents that America has ever seen. In his 2000 bid for the presidency Ralph Nader campaigned against the corporate powers dominance in the political landscape as well as the need for change in the manner of how presidential races are held.
The Impact of Modern Day Voter Suppression Thomas Jefferson once stated “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Democracy does not exist if certain people are allowed to take away the rights and freedoms of others. People should be allowed to critically analyze and interrupt their decisions without outside interferences. Democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Webster). The American Government was built upon this belief that people are allowed to choose their representativeness in an electoral system. These beliefs have been the ideas and founding principles in the past, but in our modern society, voter suppression has again and again crippled the rights of the people.
He even questions himself when he says “I wonder sometimes how things might have turned out had those ads actually run. Not so much whether I would have won or lost but rather how the voters would have perceived me…” (133) Obama just stated how he cares more about how the people views him rather than his endorsements and rather than him losing or winning. Obama has been very blunt about his passion of serving the people of the United States of America time and time again, and he believes every politician should hold that component lose to their hearts rather than taking these offers from endorsers and expecting “special interest” out of them. This can be prevented in the future if politicians would focus on the big picture of the people and how to better the country and the people rather than their political race. Not only focus and care about the people, like Obama displays, but also for the politicians to change their attitude and views.
The purpose of our nation’s democracy is to allow American citizens to elect officials that represent their interests and beliefs. However, the two-party system takes the power that the founding fathers set out to invest in the American people and gives it to the dominant parties. The dominant parties act as institutional bodies themselves, so the candidates remain very similar to those of previous elections. American citizens are left with a limited choice of candidates with little variation. Alternative third-parties do not have a realistic chance of winning elections, so citizens are forced to vote either Democrat or
are having their constitutional rights being kept from them which is a serious violation of the inalienable rights guaranteed to every American citizen. With the right to vote being the most important right in a free country, having the right taken away due to the complications of bureaucracy and the polarization of our political parties should make any responsible citizen confused or disgusted. Washington D.C. should be granted statehood because it passes all the requirements for it besides approval from corrupt and broken legislative body. However, there is hope, since we are a democracy, know your next congressman’s stance on this debate and maybe we can restore the American way of life to 600,000 silenced citizens. Works Cited Davis Jr., DeWitt.
For any bill to become a law, both houses of Congress must have a majority vote of approval for it to move on to the next step of legislation. Also, just like the Framers envisioned in 1787, representative government serves as a check on the rest of government, therefore preventing tyranny. Finally, Congress has the power to impeach the president, which is one of the defining powers that sets the United States apart from other countries. We citizens can also help preserve this culture of liberty in our own ways. It can be as small as just exercising our birth rights as U.S. citizens.
So the tug-of-war between the president and Congress is a special part (271). The framers had never envisioned that the presidency of the United States of America would become such a democratic office. They were afraid of tyranny and the pressure of the public opinion and made the Electoral College in a way that its members would be chosen in a manner decided by the state legislatures (270). They realized that the instead of letting the people elect the members, the state legislatures would elect the members by themselves. The electors from the states would than elect the country’s president from the leading citizens.