Electoral College System Essay

The President and the iniquity President of the coupled States are select in taperly by an institution know as the electoral College. The U. S. Constitution volunteers the bulky framework through which electors are found and by which they cast suffrages for the President and infirmity President. In evaluating the item choice process, somewhat commentators cast off suggested that any threshold dubiousness requires assessing how often detail election occurs. If the dissolvers of a general election are ofttimes inconclusive, they increase the likelihood of item election.The elective criteria require implementing rights that bring the mess into the hazard process. Critics of the electoral College governance argue that the presence of viable and well-funded one-third- roley or independent chairwomanial aspects, who whitethorn be able to pucker electoral right to right to votes by carrying a ingroup of the votes in carrywide elections, increases the likelihood of contingent election. Analysis of blame of the electoral College outline There are several shortcomings of the electoral College as cited by the proponents of the chairmanial election reform.These shortcomings urinate raised justifications for reform or abolition of the afoot(predicate) carcass. One of the animadversion is on the Electoral College is the Electoral College tie-up of the contingent election. In this one, the 12th amendment provide that the House of Re evidenceatives should choose a electric chair and the senate chooses the vice electric chair by contingent election if the presidential and the vice presidential campaigners votes have not r individuallyed a aboveboard major(ip)ity of the Electoral College votes.The election of the president by the House of Representatives happened only at once on the February 9th, 1825 where John Quincy Adams was elected as President over Andrew Jackson. This election was criticized by some commentators saying that it br ought about a organisational crisis since the president was selected as part of a political corrupt arrangement because some of the presidential vistas were disqualified from the contingent election. Critics claim that this election removes the choice of president and vice president voters (Whi vexr & Neale, 2004). other criticism is on the nonage president which was expressed in the Electoral College misfire. In this one, the current electoral college t unfoldk can result in the election of a minority president which states that the president can be one who wins the majority of the electoral votes however though he has lost the touristed votes. This was experienced in the 1800s where three minority presidents namely, John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in1888.The other criticisms are on the current methods of allocating electoral votes, the decennial census problem, and the unfaithful elector, presidential succession between nom inating speech and inauguration, independent and the third party versus major party vistas. These criticisms have caused so legion(predicate) controversies that have made umpteen people believe that the current Electoral College system is not a healthy system and in that locationfore it needs amendment (Whi considerr & Neale, 2004). Advantages of non-homogeneous reform plans.The electoral college reform proposals include (1)the order plan, honour from each one state deuce at large electoral votes to the state-wide usual vote victors, and one electoral vote to the winning candidate in each congressional district (2) the proportional plan, awarding electoral votes in states in direct proportion to the popular vote profitsed in the state by each candidate and (3) the automatic plan, awarding each states electoral votes directly on a victor-take- all basis to the statewide vote winners (Amar, 1995).The advantages to the electoral-vote system include its tendency to produc e a clear winner. The make-up is however face to change, allowing for the second vote in case of dispirited voter turnout. Great leverage is withal assumption to third party candidates by requiring the winner to have a majority and by this it calls for fair and just elections. A home(a) preference authorisation is incorporated in the system to run the vote. However, the government also comes in to help, where the stateal Election Agency has fewer powers under the government (Amar, 1995). condescension the fact that the president alone is elected by the people, doesnt mean he can legitimately defy the law. It is good to know that the elections are fair in that a presidential candidate who stands in his campaign and wins with a substantial majority of votes from the American people does of course gain the mandate. The candidate who emerges with the approximately electoral votes has a fully legitimate claim to the bureau for the next four years (Amar, 1995). Disadvantages o f various reform proposals. In the U. S in that location is a rule that, a candidate chosen on the Election mean solar day may not be the president. and so if it happens that a candidate has failed to win the field of study popular vote, he energy be sworn in as the president by the virtue of claiming to a greater extent electoral votes on than his opponents. Therefore the principal(prenominal) outrage of such kind of proposal, is that if the sitting president who lost in the popular vote is returned again to power after his rejection, whence there will be a wide condemnation on the Electoral college as a wacky anachronism which will lead to extensive demands for the amendments of the constitution in order for the replacement of the electoral vote with popular election (Longley, 2008). referable to this kind of proposals, there is a orifice of not telling the exact winner since the constitution is the main source of authenticity. The main harm here is that there might be a gap of both candidates having contrasting fundamental campaigns which authorise different issues of emphasis and making frequent appearances in different states. Another disadvantage for this proposal is the argument on which candidate to take office and who was chosen by an primitive and wholly irrational system.If the electoral system is replaced, by the popular vote election, since it is not irrational there is a possibility of embarrassment on the president opting to be chosen by this process (Dellinger, 2004). Another greatest disadvantage of the present system of voting in U. S is that there is a possibility that the candidate who receives the most votes from the nation (people) may not take office. Therefore the present president in office may face many challenges and offsetting values since he or she was not put in by the majority.The disadvantage of the constitutional system for choosing a president in the U. S is not correct and needs to be changed and therefore the candidate who emerges with most electoral votes has full justify claim to the office for four years (Dellinger, 2004). Conclusion It is clear that once the candidate chosen by the people of the United States on the Election Day may not become president. The candidate mustiness choose the constitutional rules currently in place.In the voting parties, the party that receives more total votes nationally wins the parliament eyepatch the one with fewer total votes chooses the Nations prime minister. The constitution however, is subject to change (Longley & Dana, 1992). Amending the Constitution to alter it would present a series of difficult questions testament we give great leverage to third party candidates by requiring the winner to have a majority? lead we have a runoff, which might lead to depressed turnout for the second vote? Will we create a National Election Agency to run the vote and or leave it with the 51 governments who now run it?If those states report raw votes, will t hey in some manner artificially increase the number of voters in the state or pad the totalsa temptation now avoided by having a set number of electoral votes for each state? These are not insuperable objections to constitutional change, but they should certainly give pause (Longley & Dana, 1992).ReferencesAmar, A. R. (1995). Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Death shut the Constitutions Succession chap Dellinger, W. (2004). Popularity contest in defense of the Electoral College, Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC. Retrieved October 26th, 2008, from http//www. slate. com/id/2108991/ Longley R. (2008). The Electoral College System, who really elects the president of the united states, About . com Longley, L. D. & Dana, J. D. , jr. (1992). The Biases of the Electoral College in the 1990s Whitaker, L. P. & Neale, T. H. (2004, November 5). The Electoral College An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved October 26th, 2008, from http//it aly. usembassy. gov/pdf/other/RL30804. pdf.