It is composed of the heads of executive departments chosen by the president with the consent of the Senate, but the members do not hold seats in Congress, and their tenure, like that… Duties of the office The Constitution succinctly defines presidential functions, powers, and responsibilities. Presidents appoint all cabinet heads and most other high-ranking officials of the executive branch of the federal government. They also nominate all judges of the federal judiciary, including the members of the Supreme Court.
But there are also staunch defenders of the Electoral College who, though perhaps less vocal than its critics, offer very powerful arguments in its favor. Arguments Against the Electoral College Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct popular election of the president generally do so on four grounds: Opponents of the Electoral College are disturbed by the possibility of electing a minority president one without the absolute majority of popular votes.
Nor is this concern entirely unfounded since there are three ways in which that could happen. One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the country were so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained the necessary majority.
This occurred, as noted above, in and was unsuccessfully attempted in and again in Should that happen today, there are two possible resolutions: House of Representatives would select the president in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
Either way, though, the person taking office would not have obtained the absolute majority of the popular vote. Yet it is unclear how a direct election of the president could resolve such a deep national conflict without introducing a presidential run-off election -- a procedure which would add substantially to the time, cost, and effort already devoted to selecting a president and which might well deepen the political divisions while trying to resolve them.
This issue was mentioned above and is discussed at greater length below. Far from being unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including in this century Wilson in both andTruman inKennedy inand Nixon in The only remarkable thing about those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared.
Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around.
Faithless Electors have never changed the outcome of an election, though, simply because most often their purpose is to make a statement rather than make a difference. That is to say, when the electoral vote outcome is so obviously going to be for one candidate or the other, an occasional Elector casts a vote for some personal favorite knowing full well that it will not make a difference in the result.
Still, if the prospect of a faithless Elector is so fearsome as to warrant a Constitutional amendment, then it is possible to solve the problem without abolishing the Electoral College merely by eliminating the individual Electors in favor of a purely mathematical process since the individual Electors are no longer essential to its operation.
Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout. Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation.
Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation and they often cite the South here so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State.
While this argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct other elections for U. Representatives, State Governors, State legislators, and a host of local officials in which these same incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even greater force.
It has been argued that despite criticisms, the Electoral College is by far the best method of electing the US President. The Electoral College an electoral device that makes the election of the President an indirect one. There are votes and are needed for a majority. This is a relevant question as an. College students first learning about the Electoral College will often defend the system by citing its original purpose: to provide a check on the public in case they make a poor choice for president. The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System There have, in its year history, been a number of critics and proposed reforms to the Electoral College system - most of them trying to eliminate it. A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no.
It is hard to imagine what counter-incentive would be created by eliminating the Electoral College. Finally, some opponents of the Electoral College point out, quite correctly, its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will in at least two respects.
First, the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to over-represent people in rural States. The result is that infor example, the combined voting age population 3, of the seven least populous jurisdiction of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College 21 Electoral votes as the 9, persons of voting age in the State of Florida.Sep 05, · The Electoral College, which elects the President, is based on the seat allocation of Congress overall, and thus also to a lesser, but still significant, extent reflects the Senate imbalance.
A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both and , Truman in , Kennedy in , Nixon in , and Clinton in both 1nd argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces.
The winner-take-all system explains why one candidate can get more votes nationwide while a different candidate wins in Electoral College. best judgment to choose a president. 21st-century. (document e) Although the electoral should be abolish undemocratic, small states overrepresented, and hurts third party system.
It can be flawed, but some people thinks its still the best system for our democracy. The Electoral college a good system for electing the president and vice in 21st century.
Major arguments against the Electoral College 1) winner take all system makes it possible for a candidate who loses the popular vote to win the electoral vote 2) there is a possibility of electing a minority president.
The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System There have, in its year history, been a number of critics and proposed reforms to the Electoral College system - most of them trying to eliminate it.
A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no.