Should the electoral college be replaced by popular sovereignty or kept the same?Which will benefit the U.S.? (explain answer)
Popular sovereignty is very similar to the social contract theory. This means that the government basically rules because we, the people, allow it to. The idea is that the real power lays with the people and, therefore, the people chosen to be in charge must make their decisions based up what the people want and what is best for them. To say it another way, the people entrust the government with power over us with the understanding that they will use it in our best interests.
The electoral college could relate to popular sovereignty in this way- in a presidential election, we do not vote directly for who we want as president. We vote for an elector who will cast a vote. The votes of those electors are what decides who is president. The electors are chosen with the belief that they will vote the way the people who chose them want them to vote.
Pretend that every history class in your school had to vote on something and you were elected by your class to cast the 1 vote that your class gets. You would be like that elector. The hope is that you would vote the way your class wanted you to vote, but you would not have to.
YES. This would solve many problems at once and it would make us a more democratic nation. No national election should be determined until at least California is fully counted. If we have one man= one vote, then it is important each vote counts, and not in some bizarrely proportionate way. I fully support abolishing the Electoral College once and for all.
Though direct democracy, in theory, seems to be the perfect solution, it is, in practice, completely impracticle. The electoral college is a group of educated representatives from a certain political party who attend the national convention and voice their vote. The process of the electoral college essentially empowers the smaller states and gives them a more proportional say than they would have in a direct democracy. As a candidate (or technically representatives for a candidate) from a certain political party wins the popular vote from a state, his team of electoral voters attend the convention. Therefore, when Barack Obama won New Jersey, a group of 13 highly educated Democratic voters who pledged their allegiance to Barack Obama casted their vote for Barack Obama, each receiving one vote. Had McCain won New Jersey, a group of 13 highly educated and predetermined Republican voters would have attended the national convention.
In reality the electoral college empowers states with fewer voters by granted them a greater say. Had popular sovereignty been implemented, California would have a greater say in who is elected president than they do now, because of their high population. However, until the electoral college controversially changes the outcome of an election, it should still be implemented.
yes that may be true for that theory of the Electoral College may only be the guess of our representatives. if may why is it so hard to abolish ,and replace it? Don't it come to see that no votes for the third party shows up ,and only could benefit the two major parties?
the focus people give on this is just popular sovereignty. there must be another idea to form voting issue.
thank you for the reply.