Reference no: EM133890101

Question

In the United States, the controversy over whether or not to preserve the Electoral College or to move to a system that relies only on votes from the general population is an ongoing one. The Electoral College is the body that is responsible for allocating electoral votes to each state in accordance with that state's proportional representation in Congress. This body is also responsible for electing the President of the United States(Congressional Digest, 2017). Those who advocate maintaining the Electoral College point to a number of benefits associated with it, including the following: The Electoral College was created to protect the interests of the nation's smaller states by guaranteeing each of them a vote in the presidential election. Without it, candidates may concentrate their attention solely on places with a high population and ignore the concerns of regions with a lower population. The Electoral College is a factor that contributes to a feeling of stability and predictability during the electoral process. Candidates for president are encouraged to acquire wide support across a variety of states and regions as a result of the need that they earn a majority of electoral votes. The Electoral College is consistent with the ideas of federalism because it strikes a balance between the priorities of the states and those of the federal government. It provides each states with the right to choose their own electors and take part in the election process(Congressional Digest, 2017). On the other hand, those who advocate for an election decided only by popular vote do so for the following reasons: Votes are treated equally, however the Electoral College system gives each person's vote a different amount of weight, which changes based on the state in which they live. In a vote based only on the opinions of the general population, each individual vote would be given the same amount of consideration as the others. Voter participation should be encouraged Voter participation may drop in states where the outcome is often foreseeable because people may believe that their votes will not have an influence on the ultimate result. Since every vote would count on a national level under a popular vote system, there is a possibility that total voter participation may rise. Reflecting the will of the people: Some critics believe that the Electoral College may lead to situations in which the candidate who wins the popular vote does not become president. This occurred in the elections of 2000 and 2016, and it is something that critics say should not be possible. A system that is based on popular vote would guarantee that the president is awarded to the candidate who obtains the most votes throughout the country(Law, T. 2019). In the end, determining whether to maintain the Electoral College or switch to a system based only on popular vote requires thinking about these arguments and balancing the benefits and drawbacks of each option. It is a difficult choice that will have repercussions not just for the distribution of power among the states but also for the overarching democratic values of representation and equality.

lots of good points But, I still am convinced that "one person, one vote" is the way it should be. Every voter is being heard and their vote makes a difference. I can also see with what is being said about candidates working with the bigger populated areas, but don't we have that with the electoral college? However, it is correct in saying that there will be repercussions either way right?