c




m
  


    





 ! "# $

%& 
'()

*

'
!( "! 
 *! ) !!'
!(  
 !


 !

!( +
!  !! 


!( 
,, !
 (,
,!(   !)! "

Let me try to explain how the Electoral College works because honest I really don't understand it at all.

I did a lot resource and I will try to explain with the best of my abilities. The United States is seeing as a

model of democracy in the world but does not mean that their electoral system is free of flaws.No

election system can completely eliminate the element of human error or the tendency of some

dishonest individuals to cheat. An election system can, however, minimize the extent to which

these human errors and fraudulent behavior impact elections.

The Electoral College defends against fraudulent behavior and human error in two ways:

First, the system makes it difficult to predict where stolen votes will make a difference. In a

direct election system, any stolen vote matters, but under the Electoral College system, stolen

votes impact the election only if they are stolen in the right location. Second, to the degree that

fraud and errors do occur, the Electoral College makes it possible to isolate the problem to one or

a handful of states. Unlike what happens in Brazil and Portugal - the head of state is elected by an

indirect process. Each state elects a certain number of Electoral College members (or delegates), which

ultimately elects the president. Every four years, on the first Tuesday of November, millions of citizens

go to the voting booths to elect the next president and his vice. The popular votes are recorded and
 c






counted and the winners announced. However, the result of the popular vote is not guaranteed, because

the Electoral College has not given its vote.

The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of U.S. presidential elections. It was created by the

framers of the Constitution of the United States, as an agreement for the presidential election process.

The Framers of our Constitution considered many ways to select the President. They declined to

give the power to Congress or to state governors for fear of corrupt bargaining between

politicians. At that time, some politicians believed that the result based solely on popular vote would be

too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The agreement

was to establish a system that would allow voters elect electors, who would then vote for candidates.

Then, the Electoral College came. This system is described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution. So

each state allocates its share of electoral votes based upon the popular vote in that state. So the total

national vote, which would be the total sum of all state's popular votes, could actually be less for the

winning candidate that got the most electoral votes. This is due to the fact that a candidate can focus his

election on just the large states and win in those states by a small popular vote margin, but then get all the

state's electoral votes. He could then lose by a large margin of popular votes in the smaller states but

those smaller states would have a lesser number of electoral votes. There are roughly a total of 538

electoral votes, and you need 270 to win the presidency and this is done state by state. There is an

Electoral College consisting of the 538 voter, one person assigned for each vote, state by state, and each

candidate has a set of 538 Electoral College representatives. The winning candidate state by state then

has his or her Electoral College representative vote for him in the winning states at the national

conventionAll this is independent of how the national popular vote actually turns out.

There have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than his

opponent, but with more electoral votes. Here are the four elections in which the candidate who won the

popular vote not won the title:

 c


þ 1824: John Quincy Adams, son of former President John Adams, received about 38,000 fewer

votes than Andrew Jackson, but no candidate won an Electoral College majority. Adams won the

presidency when the election was thrown to Congress.

þ 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote

margin in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by

264,000 votes. Hayes won a majority of votes in five of the six smallest states (excluding

Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only

109,000 popular votes. At that time, Colorado had just been admitted to the Union and

decided to appoint electors instead of holding the elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's

three electoral votes with zero popular votes, this was the only time in U.S history that

the small state decided the election.

þ 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland but

won the electoral vote by 65. In this case, some say the Electoral College worked the way

it is designed to do to prevent a candidate win an election based on support from a

region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland and he won more

than 425 000 votes in southern states. However, the rest of the country he lost by more

than 300 000 votes.

2000: Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received

50,445,156 votes. After Bush had won in Florida, he had a total of 271 of the electoral

votes, which defeated the266 of Gore.(1)

Over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been brought in Congress to change or remove the

Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the

Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral
 c







College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it

in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public

opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent

in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Estimation on the feasibility of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third

parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal

such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the

South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major

party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore

Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in

electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won

19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not

particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the

popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no assurances.The

Electoral College moderates and stabilizes American politics. It forces presidential candidates to

appeal to the most politically balanced states where they have strong support. These key states

change over time and are remarkably diverse in 2004; battlegrounds included Florida, Iowa,

Ohio, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. Today, a vote for a third-party candidate is often said to be

³wasted.´ In a direct popular election, and is time for change.

Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat quote "My fight has been based on the principle that

in America every citizen has an equal right to vote," he said. "It is based on a belief that we all

deserve a say in picking our presidential nominees". "The blessings of liberty cannot wait," he

added. "I believe the time for reform is now."(3)

 c






David Lublin is professor of Government Studies, in the Scholl of Public at American University in

Washington, DC. He quote "It is not difficult to pinpoint the reasons why one might want to abolish the

Electoral College to elect the U.S. president - mainly because the system sometimes elect a candidate who

received fewer popular votes nationwide than another. Figuring out how to replace it is not so simple".(2)

One of the reasons it is likely that the Electoral College persists is the difficulty in introducing

amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This requires, first, that Congress approves the proposal with a two-

third majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and then three quarters of the states must

ratify it. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since its adoption in 1787. Some people

think that the current system makes votes in small states more important. Actually, it makes

voters in closely divided ³battleground´ states more important.

To conclude, a national popular vote is the instrument to exercise the right to choose

candidates for political office through elections and not be confused with suffrage. The vote is

the hope, the way we express who still believe in someone who still believes in change. If we

want our government to enjoy the legitimacy and respect that can only come from the consent of

the governed, we must elect our president the same way we elect every other officeholder in our

country: every vote should count the same and the candidate with the most votes should win.

Despite the chaos, the things that surround you not be cynical about voting, our future is also in

our hands, we will ensure a new future. It's time to appeal to the standards of justice and peace to

commit to the poor and abandoned. Those that depend on our, our vote. It's time to get rid of

indifference and passivity, and challenge corruption, dishonesty and powerful with our best

weapon: our vote.

 c




è
 

? ¢
¢  
  
¢

    !  "# "  $