When a vote is cast to elect the President of the United States, most everyone feels good knowing they exercised their constitutional right to vote, and took part in the election of the next president of the United States. In all actuality the casted vote does not vote for a presidential candidate, but rather for electors to make their own presidential vote on the states behalf. (History.com) An elector decides who gets to be the next president of the United States, not the person actually visiting the polls. This practice is unjust for our country in several ways; the majority vote doesn’t always matter, campaigners tend to focus on certain geographical areas of the country and ignore others, it makes it very hard for a third party or independent candidate to win, and the president elect is announced hours before some states have even finished voting. How can a process that is seemingly unfavorable for the people of the United States still be practiced today? There have been 4 occurrences in U.S. history where a president was elected based on electoral vote, and not popular. Millions of people went out to do their civic duty and cast their hopeful vote, and it didn’t matter. According to the national archives, in 1824 John Quincy Adams was elected president and he did not win either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes, and beat Adams in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Since the rule was that a candidate must receive 131 majority electoral votes in the Electoral College to be elected president, the decision was ultimately left to the House of Representatives, who chose Adams. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election by electoral vote, but lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 votes to Samuel Tilden. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes and Grover Cleveland was awarded 168, but Harrison actually lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes. Everything worked out as it should for the next 112 years, and in 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner over Al Gore. Al Gore received 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266. (Archives.gov) If we had only based the presidential decision on a popular majority vote, these instances wouldn’t happen. It would be highly unlikely for a tie in the popular race so the house would not need to intervene and decide the election. All of our local, state, and regional officials are elected by a popular vote, why shouldn’t our president be? Some will argue that the Electoral College is the fairest way to determine the United States president. The process allows for the less dense areas of the country to have a voice. Having the Electoral College stops the sprawling and more densely populated metropolitan areas from over running the less populated rural areas in votes. (Occupytheory) There is no argument that an area such as New York City has a higher voter turn out than say, Grinnell Iowa. Even if a small fraction of the massive population of New York voted, it would still beat out the smaller community. This system seemingly protects the minority voters such as the farmers and small town workers,
…show more content…
When you watch the presidential election on TV, the internet, or listen on the radio more often than not the candidate is announced as a winner and the opposing candidate has conceded before the polls close on the west coast of the United States, and the 2 non-continental states of Alaska and Hawaii. There are celebrations and parties before some people have even had the chance to cast a vote. What would be the point of going out to vote? It essentially doesn’t matter because the “important” states have won and the minimum number of electoral votes needed is assumed The Electoral College process has been debated on its fairness, effectiveness, and need numerous times since its creation in 1787, and even if it were to be changed, the debate would continue. This system is unfair to the people of the United States, its not right for candidates to ignore the vast majority of the
When you watch the presidential election on TV, the internet, or listen on the radio more often than not the candidate is announced as a winner and the opposing candidate has conceded before the polls close on the west coast of the United States, and the 2 non-continental states of Alaska and Hawaii. There are celebrations and parties before some people have even had the chance to cast a vote. What would be the point of going out to vote? It essentially doesn’t matter because the “important” states have won and the minimum number of electoral votes needed is assumed The Electoral College process has been debated on its fairness, effectiveness, and need numerous times since its creation in 1787, and even if it were to be changed, the debate would continue. This system is unfair to the people of the United States, its not right for candidates to ignore the vast majority of the