Question

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT:

Should the Electoral College continue to play a role in the selection of the president?

Do you think your vote counts?

What's your take on negative campaigning?

Answer 1

1. Instead of direct popular national voting, Americans elect a president through the state-by - state mechanism of the Electoral College. Today, all but two states are awarding the statewide winner all of their electoral votes. Ever after the presidency was refused by the House of Representatives to Andrew Jackson in 1824, others have asked for its abolition. The importance of this important and divisive organisation built by our fathers in the oldest constitution of the world in 1787 is timely to recognise. There are three critiques of the college: It is' undemocratic;' it requires a candidate who does not win the most votes to be elected; and its winner-takes-all method cancels the losing candidates' votes in each state.

2. Although thousands of votes, if not tens of thousands of votes, often win elections, it is not true that one vote can make no difference, or will make no difference. Through a handful of votes, previous elections were decided. Ultimately, by 537 votes, the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was decided. Democrat Al Franken defeated Republican Norm Coleman in the 2008 United States Senate race in Minnesota by just 312 votes out of almost 2.9 million votes cast. As a result of Franken 's win the Democrats gained a supermajority in the Senate. A Virginia House of Delegates race finished at the state level, with more than 23,000 votes cast, in a tie which had to be determined by taking a name out of a cup, put in a film canister. Republican David Yancey was declared the winner, and one seat took control of the House of Delegates from the Republicans. Each vote counts.Democracy works by reflecting the country's population's cumulative desires and needs. You are taking your view out of the conversation by not voting, making the democratic process less representative of the popular will. More votes means a more accurate election and a fairer expression of the citizens' wishes and needns.

3. Negative campaigning is a type of election advertisement when, instead of showing its own candidates or the successes of its administrations, current or former, a political party decides to illustrate the faults for another candidate in its campaign. Such ads can be discreet occasionally, although it can be very explicit at other moments. Inflammatory ads usually concentrate on the electoral past of a candidate, or lack thereof. Negative campaigns are strong and can convince floating voters in particular to make up their minds, but contentious campaigns can also backfire.