The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three 3 electoral votes for a population of , citizens as of Census Bureau estimates and Texas has thirty-two 32 electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million.
By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every , people and Texas has one "elector" for about every , The difference between these two states of , is the largest in the Electoral College. See how your state racks up against the rest on our Population vs. Electoral Vote page. The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states.
The fear was that without this power, politicians would completely ignore small states and only focus on big population centers. Read this Providence Journal article on how small states control elections. Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all states give all of its electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to win the presidency.
Naturally, candidates tend to concentrate resources on the largest payoffs, the states which can provide the greatest number of electoral votes.
For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Consider the presidential elections.
Even though more than million people voted in the election, only a small portion of those votes in fact were decisive. Indeed, the results would have been exactly the same even if nearly 80 million of those voters would have stayed home.
The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored. Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state. The Electoral College allowed for the election of a president who has the support of the national electorate. But, if several candidates split the national vote, the election is sent to the legislature.
Since the Founding Fathers assumed this would happen often, the Electoral College had something to offer everyone and won out -- not because it was anyone's first choice, but because it was at least minimally acceptable to everyone involved. There are a couple of other reaosns that the College made some sense to the Founders in the late 18th century, but not the early 21st. In the 18th century, southerners had no intention of allowing their slaves to vote in federal elections-- however, southerners wanted the slave population to count towards representation to avoid domination from the populous North.
By extension, creating an electoral system that was based not on individual votes but on congressional representation gave the South an expanded role in picking the president. Americans wouldn't be able to make intelligent decisions. Many of the framers worried that poor communications technology and low literacy rates would make it difficult for Americans to know enough about candidates from different regions of the country to make informed electoral choices. Whatever the merits of that concern in , it certainly isn't true today -- the internet, cable networks and mass print media means that voters can be well informed and get information at their convenience.
There would be no national political parties. The founders incorrectly assumed that the populations of most states would vote for favorite sons, dividing the national electorate between a number of candidates, none of who would have anything approaching a majority of the popular vote. Why does your organization want to abolish the Electoral College? Details of FairVote's support of a direct election for president can be found on many pages throughout this site, starting here with our National Popular Vote section , but our primary objectives are:.
FairVote would like to see the Electoral College replaced with a simple direct election-- one person, one vote. We're happy to try to answer them. E-mail us at info at fairvote.
Electoral College: FAQ's. Where is the Electoral College mentioned in the Constitution? What is the composition of the Electoral College? How many votes does each state receive? When and where does the Electoral College meet? How are electoral votes apportioned? Why was the Electoral College put into place? What do you want to replace it with? I still have more questions! Return to Top. Following State law, they drew lots for a winner.
The candidates put their names on individual pieces of paper and put the pieces in a bowl. A neutral third party pulled a name out of the bowl and that candidate was declared the winner. A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Just like a tie, State law determines how the winner is decided, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of electors.
The law provides that if States have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of electors, those determinations must be completed at least six days before the meeting of the electors. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.
After debate, the Senate and the House failed to agree to reject the votes. Uniformed Services include the U. For more information, visit the Federal Voting Assistance Program web site. Can citizens of U. Territories vote for President? No, the Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U. Territories Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.
Minor Outlying Islands to vote for President. Unless citizens in U. Territories have official residency domicile in a U. State or the District of Columbia and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote , they cannot vote in the presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election. The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions.
However, selecting delegates and voting at a national convention is unrelated to the Electoral College process. Read the Federalist Papers for the founders' views on the Electoral College:.
0コメント