Question

What purpose does the electoral college serve? Does it still serve as a protection for small states, or is used as a way to control the political process with less than a majority of the votes? Defend your position with facts. As we wrap up your examination of the political process, consider whether we should be limited to just two parties or would we be better served with several different parties? Use information you have learned in this course to support your position.

Answer 1

Our Constitution's Framers created a scheme that, while protecting minority rights, would create a democracy. They established the Electoral College to safeguard the inhabitants of the lower nations, and by a simple majority they dismissed government because historically, plebiscites were the instrument of dictatorships, not democracy.
In practice, the Electoral College provides racial minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics, a little more electoral power and is therefore essential in helping to attain racial justice. Because these minorities tend to live in the larger states ' big towns, their votes are crucial in tilting all of their state's electoral votes, thereby promoting candidates of both parties to appeal for their votes.

The Electoral College system saves us from that. If there are allegations of fraud, the investigation is limited to states where the electoral votes matter and the race is close.

The scheme of the Electoral College prohibits applicants from winning with only regional attraction. In a number of sub-elections, statistically, having to prevail generates a better outcome for the nation. For the same reason, in the World Series we count the number of games won

The Electoral College is neither antiquated nor toxic ; it is an undervalued institution that helps to maintain our constitutional system, and it deserves a complete defense.

The abolition of the Electoral College now may fulfill an angry desire for direct democracy, but it would also mean the demolition of federalism. There would then be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states) and ultimately no sense in even having states, except as central government administrative agencies

It doesn't really matter if the Electoral College was designed to protect small states in 1787 for the purposes of a discussion on the merits of the Electoral College today, but it wasn't. Even at its founding, in deciding how we choose our president, protecting tiny countries was at best a minor consideration.

Those in favor of the two-party system think that by offering political platforms, it can simplify politics for many Americans. Furthermore, in the American version of a democratic republic, the two-party system has a historical priority of working well.

Those against the two-party system do not think it offers enough space for fresh thoughts and applicants from third parties. In addition, some think that civil discourse between family, friends, and representatives in government is experiencing a breakdown through the intense polarization that can result from a two-party system.

While the constitution does not provide language that explicitly endorses a two-party system, many of its legislation perpetuate their presence, such as election college and voting for plurality. Electoral college makes it nearly impossible for a candidate from a third party to win any particular office by, among other things, discouraging votes in individual countries. Similarly, as time goes by, plurality voting, which ensures the candidate with the majority of votes winning, usually favors two opposing parties. This is only produced stronger by the reality that most Americans appear to be leaning to the right or to the left, with a tiny proportion remaining in between. As long as these systems exist a two party system will naturally prevail.