The United States should get rid of the Electoral College
If there is one thing I have always felt should be changed into, in America it is the Electoral College system, together with the English system of measurement and the law that says you need 21 or older to legally drink alcoholic beverages. But before I go into the reasons why I feel the electoral college system must be changed, I will for those who are not aware of what to explain this system.
In most countries that choose their leaders through direct democratic elections is the case with France, the procedure followed is one that the country looks to hold elections, where all candidates who want to be president in an election with the winner does not necessarily always a candidate to the presidency, have received as he or she needs more than fifty percent of the vote in order to Sun If the winner (this meaning the candidate who got the most votes do not get) a figure (Not shown) is higher than 50 percent, which is done is, a second ballot takes place which is called the "ballot" which is basically that an election place between the first place winner and second place. This basically guarantees that someone does not win because the opposition vote was divided as might be the case when Abraham Lincoln had first been elected. He turns out that very often have the candidate who was not in the first round to win the second round, as was the case in Poland in 2005, Tusk (who lost Kaczynski), or in Peru with the writer Llosa (who lost Fujimori) in 1990, or Le Pen (who lost Chirac) in France in 2002. But more often then not he or she won the first round, in the second round, or sometimes it happens that the candidate who wins the first round of the fifty-percent mark is and is almost as President of the case of Poland in 2000 was with Kwasniewski.
Add as a footnote to this and a Republican, I can that that if the United States have had a system like this in 92 then Clinton might not win the election, because if memory serves us well, where he received 370 electoral votes (100 more than needed), he received only 47% of the vote. The system according to the most countries to choose their leaders by popular vote as this such as Britain or Italy, the Prime Minister chooses the opposite by their parliamentary elections; Clinton would have had this year, the runner-up, George Bush, Sr. was the face. In a choice most would but no one can prove George Bush would argue could have been won because Perot probably has more votes away from George Bush then he has of Bill Clinton, but at the end of the day, with any accuracy what might happen to say. Then again, the Democrats could argue that if The same system was in place in 2000, then Al Gore would the White House from 2001 to 2006 have employed, instead of George W. Bush. I say this but it was probably his ego will in this article for reasons why it does not have to give, to be so.
This article I write my reasons why I feel the electoral college should be practiced by most countries changed the type to choose their president by popular vote, which I have already explained. The election committee is one system, dates back to the begging, when George Washington was elected as president, a system in which each state a certain amount of what the "electoral college" is granted known. The larger the population of the state of electoral votes more it is, of course with California is the state with the largest population it also has the most electoral votes. If we add up the total amount of electoral votes from all 50 states of the sum we get is 538, from which the candidate of the Hope, was elected president, you need a figure no less than 270 to win, to be sure, the presidency of the United States of America. As a personal Note I will say that it odd that if one really thinks about the subject we are the only country in the world who have technically not really a name.
The way the electoral college is quite simple, not to say that it works so efficiently. Elections in each state where the people of the State they are voting for the candidates registered place of their choice, based on a list of those who will be running for president. In these elections, with one held in each and every state by the U.S. of A, the candidate who wins the state in question has also given all the electoral votes of the state. In all these, it should clarify be that all the electoral votes for the candidate do not have to, then win the votes of the state in question. This means that he or she need not necessarily an 50% majority than 35% of the votes could be enough, or have a margin of victory over his nearest rival, literally, a voice on the lighter side of the argument could come because he or she had another son or daughter to vote for him or her. This system has, as history has proven on two occasions to give the possibility that the person who wins the electoral college and because of its president, is to do this in spite of not necessarily win the vote. This in a way that it was that the will of the people have not really not a candidate for most Americans, the House on Pennsylvania Avenue as the White House is known to be filled because not enough people respect him for not voting but because they are so wrong in the States.
For my part could be considered a personal opinion which found a bug in this system, except basically a theory of some of the practice with theory, one of the following is. The point of the presidential election is or should be elected to govern a man or a woman to the government and represent the nation, it or she chooses until the next election as a whole, not as separate regions or states, but I repeat as a whole. By that I mean those who voted for the winning candidate and those who do not and those States (as is the case in the United States) where he or she, together with the countries he or she can not win. Based on this idea could be considered to ask you what you need for a system that elections in each state has? No one would answer me, if the candidate of their choice is to Representation of the country as a whole to the governors or local officials like senators who go only to this individual for the state, which they opposed chosen. I ask the End of the day does it really matter if George W. Bush lost California in 2000 and 2004 or that Clinton lost Texas in 1992 or Reagan got Washington DC in 84? It is obvious that it is not how these men still served as President in this countries, although the majority of the population voted for another candidate, they do not claim the could, although its president she would perhaps have to do so.
Of course I am aware that some say this is a theoretical argument I would agree on, but if we then take the practical arguments, let them begin. In particular, when a nation is a system like the one the United States for the election their leader, I could say, because it is a fact, is the only one that works, then the condition of each individual votes on taking a much greater Importance and therefore requires those doing the vote to be registered in a particular state or another. This is to prevent anyone voting twice in two different States. This in and of itself can be a problem for some voters who do not register for the vote on time, as is the case with many people given that there is a time-limit, in which to do this, though some states offer same day registration but this is a very recent phenomenon. This has of course to what some people the vote was not because they are not on time, which does not happen in countries that do not register on this system. As in those that are now standard system, all one have to do is present yourself with one of the id to any place where you can do so without the need to register through worry.
The problems with an application to continue, how can you not at American embassies or consulates (or at least not yet) not even in advanced let alone the same day. This creates a complex situation then need be, for those who are resident abroad (which does not serve in the U.S. armed forces), as it takes to postal voting by mail, their sweet time to take order in the next. This result in my case do not mean that I would cast my vote in 2004 (this is my first have been times) when I got the ballot the day of the election that it is impossible for me, my voice would have been received in which shall be sent by registered or abandoned are in the American Embassy a few days before election day. This after the elections of board of the State of New York, where I am registered. The latter, a situation I can not imagine me predict that those who came with this system before so many years, that would come a day when few Americans would vote from overseas.
I also see that a system like this, some people feel the need not to choose that if the matter carefully their voice is less make a difference, one voice does not usually lead. To justify this assertion, I can give the example of me that if I live in California, with me as a republican I would not really bother to vote because my vote, I would not make a difference to know the overall vote in a state that Democrat has been in every presidential election 1988th However, if the nationwide vote were then my vote would make a difference (very little) in the population Tally though not in the state, and since the winner gets all the electoral votes no matter how broad or narrow his margin of victory was then why should I or anyone else the trouble to To vote if he or she hears, for example, in his or her radio or television, that 90% of the votes in the state with the opposing candidate, or even in his own business one 20% lead were counted.
This leads to believe, that even if the missing 10% were for the following candidates would be nothing change than the other candidates, voting has already secured the win and added to by the right has all the electoral votes of the State to offer his or her tally. It is for this reason that I show in which, as this would not happen if the United States a system like all other countries had insisted the world, their to elect leaders by a national elections instead of several local elections. This is also why I say that George W. Bush may not be the popular vote in 2000, lost have. As if it is from this standpoint it is possible to see how some voters who had voted for him in this sense that in the state, it registers were to vote in their would be abandoned made no difference. Of course I'm not saying the same may not hold true for Al Gore voters who have it could be that he won the popular vote by an even larger margin.
But I do not want those who read this article the impression that I get no knowledge of the rights of individual states and the reason why this system was mainly the implementation in a way force any candidate want to take the President of the United States has become, to considering the rights and needs of each country and not just focus on those whose population are large. This system is still in many ways is what it was difficult to avoid, because if we may be confronted helped a reality for Moment, it has not select candidates with realistic chances of winning campaign in less densely populated states like Montana, Wyoming and Idaho made in the populous states like New York, California or Illinois. Since this is the case with no offense intended anyone, as always, the main populous states have more electoral votes in the way of Related to this offer so it does not have the trend that the candidate makes campaign in the more populated areas of the country or even created a situation in which a Candidate less populated states offer a better deal changed when they get their voters about their opponents.
Many will say that the electoral college should be maintained because it is tradition, and it was the way our founding forefathers meant for it may be true, but then again let us not overlook the more than is obvious that this gentleman are the dead. This is a fact, my point is the connection to the United States that it is not started, their nation, but we, those who are its citizens in the present and not those who were in the very distant past are so with this I say, in the sense we should be to make laws and have systems that are suitable to the reality of today and not keep outdated systems just because it's will those who were no longer with us.
To the previous argument I like, that democracy would add, with Demo, a Greek word, while cracy meaning people of the government do what the word government of the people, the majority rule, the change and can not usually, what the basic options will be held, constitutions and laws last amended in order suit the changes in the mood of the people. This is what should be a democracy, sometimes in America, which is opposite, that those who come upon a time, sometimes many generations ago the view that those whose families emigrated to America later should be either in their will or simply leave the country. This is a democracy where the majority rule is replaced by the rule, those whose families back on the broadest in America.
Finally, I want to say that I am convinced because of my above reasons, I am all the electoral college must, as soon as possible from the one in most countries to hold the presidential election practices to be replaced. In terms of replacing the system that I would do is not take his Merit, it was chosen over 40 U.S. presidents, and was the first time, although this does not mean that a more efficient system are not found. The case is that only because a system was first This does not mean it is the best. This logic also applies to the English system of units, most countries have replaced with the metric, because it is easier to and use more precise when it comes to measuring what the small size.
About the Author
My name is Gianni Truvianni, I am an author who writes with the simple aim of sharing his ideas, thoughts and so much more of what I am with those who are interested in perhaps reading something new. As for the details regarding my life I would say that there is nothing that lifts them above the ordinary. I was born in New York City in 1967 on May 21st and am presently living in Warsaw, Poland where I wrote my first book “New York’s Opera Society” now Available on Amazon.