Question

The Electoral College the founders were wildly successful in designing a mechanism that values and protects the voices of the minorities and less populous groups, thwarting any possible tyranny by a majority. Miss Ross teaches us that, “...if winning were only about getting the most votes, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities or the biggest states. Why would that candidate care about what people in West Virginia or Iowa or Montana think?” so as a result of the candidates needing to muster so many electoral votes, “...the system encourages coalition-building and national campaigning. In order to win, a candidate must have the support of many different types of voters, from various parts of the country. Winning only the South or the Midwest is not good enough. You cannot win 270 electoral votes if only one part of the country is supporting you.” Therefore, Miss Ross concludes that “Every state, and therefore every voter in every state, is important.” Considering all of this, do you think that critics of the electoral college system who claim that the system is not ‘fair’ have any merit to their complaint? Why or why not? Do you think that every vote really does count? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Answer

The Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution, which forms every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States.

There have been so many criticism on electoral college but this has no merit & electoral college is the ideal system for electing the president, Vice president & others. Reason in support of Electoral college is as follows :-

1. Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
2. Enhances the status of minority interests,
3. Contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
4. maintains a federal system of government and representation.

Proponents thus believe that the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.

Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those State with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth.

It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.

Conclusion

The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.

Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers.

2nd Part Answer

Yes, Every vote counts in the election, reason being --

If a person votes for the public good, then it’s perfectly rational for them to vote, no matter how big the election, In a large election, you have the potential to make a big impact for a lot of people. For instance, the U.S. presidential election has a global effect. By electing a specific candidate, a voter can help bring about policies that provide social services, foreign policies, tax breaks, and other governmental benefits.

Voting is also a crucial way to let politicians who are in office know how you feel about their performance and policies. If the majority of people in a district vote for a candidate who has promoted a certain issue, then that’s a sign to other politicians that people care a lot about that subject — and if they want to be in office, they should, too