Electoral College Vs. National Popular Vote The recent 2016 presidential election, has caused the population to question the electoral college, more than it ever has before. Those who disagree with the electoral college have propelled the National Popular Vote (NPV), a movement that started in 1969. Although many disagree with the electoral college, the vast majority do not truly understand its purpose, and even less know who or what it is composed of. The lack of knowledge about the electoral college allows the simplicity of the NPV to be widely supported. The same people who oppose the NPV have acknowledged that the electoral college is flawed. The population now is far more educated than it was in 1787, therefore the reason our founding
…show more content…
Their amendment, had it been approved, would have reverted our nations election process to what it was originally. Celler and Bayh proposed that the president be elected by majority vote and the runner up would be vice president. Congress passed this proposal however, it was filibustered in the senate and died. (Koza, 128). In 2001, Professor Robert Bennett, claimed the state could allocate their electoral votes based on national popular vote, eliminating the need for a constitutional amendment. (Koza, 281). The most recent proposal is “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote”, which the most detailed text can be found in John Koza’s book “Every Vote Equal”. This proposal would eliminate the “winner-take-all” system that many states have adopted for the sake of simplicity and empower the peoples vote. In short, the people would vote for a candidate instead of voting for the electoral …show more content…
Promoting the truth would be an important first step, the truth being telling the people that they are voting to let their electors know what candidate they prefer. Instead of promoting the illusion of a direct election. Next, the electors, should not be elected by the political party, in fact political affiliation should have no part in the elector selection process. The states could select the electors however, their needs to be a minimum nationwide standard of eligibility. Additionally, a candidate should not be declared president-elect until after the electoral college votes, doing so prior to nullifies the electoral college
Their amendment, had it been approved, would have reverted our nations election process to what it was originally. Celler and Bayh proposed that the president be elected by majority vote and the runner up would be vice president. Congress passed this proposal however, it was filibustered in the senate and died. (Koza, 128). In 2001, Professor Robert Bennett, claimed the state could allocate their electoral votes based on national popular vote, eliminating the need for a constitutional amendment. (Koza, 281). The most recent proposal is “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote”, which the most detailed text can be found in John Koza’s book “Every Vote Equal”. This proposal would eliminate the “winner-take-all” system that many states have adopted for the sake of simplicity and empower the peoples vote. In short, the people would vote for a candidate instead of voting for the electoral …show more content…
Promoting the truth would be an important first step, the truth being telling the people that they are voting to let their electors know what candidate they prefer. Instead of promoting the illusion of a direct election. Next, the electors, should not be elected by the political party, in fact political affiliation should have no part in the elector selection process. The states could select the electors however, their needs to be a minimum nationwide standard of eligibility. Additionally, a candidate should not be declared president-elect until after the electoral college votes, doing so prior to nullifies the electoral college