Presentation on theme: "“WINNER TAKE ALL” ELECTORAL COLLEGE"— Presentation transcript:
1“WINNER TAKE ALL” ELECTORAL COLLEGE CONSThe possibility of electing a president without popular supportThe risk of so-called "faithless" ElectorsMay hurt voter turnout (why vote as a Dem in TX?)Risks failure to accurately reflect the national popular willPROSContributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected presidentForces candidates to campaign in smaller states and not only urban centersContributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, andMaintains a federal system of government and representation with state electorsIn this system, which is essentially the system we use today, each state gets a certain number of electoral votes. The winner of that state’s popular vote receives ALL of the electoral votes for that state, regardless of what percentage of the vote they get.
2POPULAR VOTECONSRequires a Constitutional Amendment to remove the electoral collegeFocus shifts to urban areas and large populations (Who is going to campaign in rural Montana?May hurt voter turnout (why vote when it is 1 of 150 million—it won’t matter)Questions on how to declare a winner (Do you need over 50% of Americans to support? Do we use a Instant Runoff system where you rank the candidates?)May hurt 3rd Party CandidatesPROSContributes to the cohesiveness of the country by giving each vote the exact same weight as anotherMay help voter turnout by eliminating the electoral votesEliminates the concern that faithless electors can impact the electionWould accurately portray will of the people in the US by ensuring that the winner was the candidate wanted by most AmericansIn this system, the winner of the election would simply be the candidate that receives the most votes. There are multiple views on how to implement this system and whether a candidate must receive 50% of the vote or higher to win, but the main idea is the person with the most votes will win the election.
3PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION CONSThe possibility of electing a president without popular supportThe risk of so-called "faithless" Electors (Can we figure out what 12 vote for one candidate and what 8 vote for another)Questions remain about what to do with votes that do not break evenly (i.e. 55% to 45% in a state with 10 electoral votes or 51% to 49% in state with 4 EC Votes)Risks failure to accurately reflect the national popular will and does not stop state inequality in ECRisks candidates focusing on states with big populations (why go to MT where you would get at most 2 of the 3 votes when you can aim for 30 in CA?)PROSEncourages voter turnout by knowing that your vote can impact the election (Dems in TX and Reps in CA will try to get as many votes as possible)May force candidates to campaign in smaller states and not only urban centers by keeping EC in placeEliminates the winner take all systemMaintains a federal system of government and representation with state electorsForces candidates to campaign in rural areas of major states and not just citiesIn this system, the electoral college system would remain. However, the winner-take-all system would be abolished for a model that gave proportional votes based off of the statewide votes. For example, if you were to get 60% of the votes in PA (which has 20 EC Votes), you would get 60% of the electoral votes (12). This would ensure that electoral ballots were representative of the population within the state.
4CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT METHOD CONSThe possibility of electing a president without popular support and does not solve inequality of state representationThe risk of so-called "faithless" Electors still existsIncentivizes politicians to draw Congressional districts to help their political partiesRisks failure to accurately reflect the national popular willRisks campaigns will narrow focus to only swing districts and avoid the rest of the countryPROSContributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected presidentForces candidates to campaign in many areas of the USHelps voter turnout and vote becomes localized (my vote would really count when it is only the people of my home area)Maintains a federal system of government and representation with state electorsHas worked successfully in Maine and NebraskaIn this system, the Electoral College would remain in place. However, the winner-take-all system would be eliminated and the model of Maine and Nebraska would be adopted nationally. In this system, the winner of each Congressional District would get 1 electoral vote, while the state popular vote winner would get 2 electoral votes.
5NATIONAL BONUSCONSDoes not solve issue of person with less votes winning election (though it does make it far less likelyDoes not help a third party candidate emergeDoes not fully address the inequality between the states in terms of electoral powerDoes not address faithless elector problemPROSKeeps the current system in place, but helps ensure the popular vote winner has a better chance at winningWould encourage voter turnout (Republican in CA may make difference in national popular vote)Forces campaigns to appeal to the masses for the 102 point bonus (Campaign across country—not just swing states)Maintains a federal system of government and representation with state electorsThis system would keep the current Electoral College votes in place, but would give the national popular vote winner an additional 102 electoral votes (2 from each state). This would make the EC have a total of 640 votes and it would take 321 votes to win.