When evaluating the arguments raised on both sides it I believe that the Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote. An argument that exposes the weakness of the Electoral College and why it should be replaced by a national popular vote is because the ‘winner takes all’ system distorts the results of the elections. There have been various results in which the popular vote did not reflect the results of the Presidential election. A notorious example of how distorted results can be under the Electoral College is that of Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Though Al Gore won the popular vote by 48.4% Bush won the votes of the Electoral College which resulted in him winning the Presidential election.
A “winner take all” sort of thing. It would bother you if you were on the losing side of that, and your vote is technically thrown away. What else is bothersome to Durbin is that the Electoral College distorts the election process, with some votes having more weight than others do. It is like your vote counts as one and your neighbor’s counts as three. It is undemocratic, un-American, and unfair.
A voter could switch from voting for the Conservatives to vote for the Labour Party at the next election because they decide according to single issues. In general the public today is not really aligned to parties anymore. I would say that party allegiance is something which is nearly vanished in Britain’s voting behavior. There are still groups which are strongly related to one or the other party but that is not as common as was in the 50s and 60s. The important things today are which party has at the moment the right promises for the single voter and which party is better in delivering policy goals.
At that time it was probably true. However in modern times, and within just a couple hundred years, the Principle of Separation of Powers has eroded away. The Principle of Separation of Powers is why the Legislative branch was split at the convention; unfortunately the founding fathers did not foresee how the Judicial branch could be used to promote the interests of an imperialistic few who took control of all branches through crony promotions and political
Clearly, some awry events occurred that prevented the election of the true President of the United States, Al Gore. President Bush should not have been elected President, confusing ballots, voting error were only some causes that skewed the outcome of the 2000 election. George Bush and Al Gore were pitted against each other with the general campaign focusing on domestic issues such as health care, social security and medicare, but foreign policy also played a major part in the campaign where Bush wanted better utilization of troops. Gore on the other
Higher unemployment rates lead to a more devastating economic crisis resulting in the failure to re-elect a democratic President or more precisely, our current President. These “truths” are not openly admitted to the general population and one can argue that they do not serve to benefit the good of the people of this economic state but rather benefit the political party. One can argue that politicians are mainly focused on their personal success but aren’t all of us
Liberty died in America today I'm watching the results of the mid-term election as I write this and I am afraid that freedom died in America tonight. There have simply not been enough incumbents defeated to make an impression upon the entrenched elites who control the Big Government party which runs this nation. Yes, the House of Representatives has gone over to the Republicans, but those of us who were looking for the majority of that body to be composed of new people are disappointed. Yes, some of what the liberal mainstream media has taken to calling the “Tea Party” candidates have won their races. But their numbers are few, miniscule really in comparison to the total of 435 seats that were up for grabs.
‘If it isn’t broken don’t fix it.’ Discuss with reference to the electoral systems used for national elections in the UK and USA. The first past the post systems used in both the USA and the UK unquestionably have the potential to produce election results that are not representative of the break down of total votes in an election, providing results that don’t reflect voter wishes. One may argue that the electoral systems used in both the USA and UK marginalize minorities, causes wasted, insignificant votes and promote voter apathy. However despite the numerous criticisms of first past the post it has continued to be the system in place to decide the President in the USA and dictate which party forms government, and thus which party leader becomes Prime Minister in the UK, suggesting the system has its advantages. Proponents of the UK and US voting methods also often cite the lack of a credible alternative as a reason for the retention of the current systems.
Although I am not yet able to vote I have already asked myself this while coming up with only two answers which are: I’ve decided who I want to lead us and that I’ve gained independence. First being that I’ve decided I want to lead us. If the person we vote for wins then they could possibly affect our future, such as if the president we voted for gets elected then he could do things such as sending our country to war. The president could also do many other things that could either positively or negatively affect our future if they have help from someone such as the congress like signing bills into laws which could range from drugs being illegal to killing people being legal. Second being I’ve gained independence.
Some of the cons of it would be if the United States went universal we would lose out on a lot of companies. Which I think is kind of selfish if you ask me. They are so scared that the government will be in charge. They feel like the government will have say so over everything. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are run by the government.