Electoral College Pros and Cons

Electoral College Pros and Cons The Electoral College system, long a source of controversy, came under especially heavy criticism after the 2016 presidential election when Republican Donald Trump lost the nationwide popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes but won the Electoral College- and thus the presidency- by 74 electoral votes. Electoral College Pros and Cons Pros:Gives the smaller states an equal voice.Prevents disputed outcomes ensuring a peaceful transition of powerReduces the costs of national presidential campaigns.Cons:Can disregard the will of the majority.Gives too few states too much electoral power.Reduces voter participation by creating a â€Å"my vote doesn’t matter† feeling. By its very nature, the Electoral College system is confusing. When you vote for a presidential candidate, you are actually voting for a group of electors from your state who have all â€Å"pledged† to vote for your candidate. Each state is allowed one elector for each of its Representatives and Senators in Congress. There are currently 538 electors, and to be elected, a candidate must get the votes of at least 270 electors. The Obsolescence Debate The Electoral College system was established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. The Founding Fathers chose it as a compromise between allowing Congress to choose the president and having the president elected directly by the popular vote of the people. The Founders believed that most common citizens of the day were poorly educated and uninformed on political issues. Consequently, they decided that using the â€Å"proxy† votes of the well-informed electors would lessen the risk of â€Å"tyranny of the majority,† in which the voices of the minority are drowned out by those of the masses. Additionally, the Founders reasoned that the system would prevent states with larger populations from having an unequal influence on the election. Critics, however, argue that Founder’s reasoning is no longer relevant as today’s voters are better-educated and have virtually unlimited access to information and to the candidates’ stances on the issues. In addition, while the Founders considered the electors as being â€Å"free from any sinister bias† in 1788, electors today are selected by the political parties and are usually â€Å"pledged† to vote for the party’s candidate regardless of their own beliefs. Today, opinions on the future of the Electoral College range from protecting it as the basis of American democracy to abolishing it completely as an ineffective and obsolete system that may not accurately reflect the will of the people. What are some of the main advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College? Advantages of the Electoral College   Promotes fair regional representation: The Electoral College gives the small states an equal voice. If the president was elected by the popular vote alone, candidates would mold their platforms to cater to the more populous states. Candidates would have no desire to consider, for example, the needs of farmers in Iowa or commercial fishermen in Maine.Provides a clean-cut outcome: Thanks to the Electoral College, presidential elections usually come to a clear and undisputed end. There is no need for wildly expensive nationwide vote recounts. If a state has significant voting irregularities, that state alone can do a recount. In addition, the fact that a candidate must gain the support of voters in several different geographic regions promotes the national cohesion needed to ensure a peaceful transfer of power.Makes campaigns less costly: Candidates rarely spend much time- or money- campaigning in states that traditionally vote for their party’s candidates. For example, Democrats rarely campaign in liberal-leaning California, just as Republicans tend to skip the more conservative Texas. Abolishing the Electoral College could make America’s many campaign financing problems even worse.  Ã‚   Disadvantages of the Electoral College   Can override the popular vote: In five presidential elections so far- 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016- a candidate lost the nationwide popular vote but was elected president by winning the Electoral College vote. This potential to override the â€Å"will of the majority† is often cited as the main reason to abolish the Electoral College.Gives the swing states too much power: The needs and issues of voters in the 14 swing states- those that have historically voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates- get a higher level of consideration than voters in other states. The candidates rarely visit the predictable non-swing states, like Texas or California. Voters in the non-swing states will see fewer campaign ads and be polled for their opinions less often voters in the swing states. As a result, the swing states, which may not necessarily represent the entire nation, hold too much electoral power.Makes people feel their vote doesn’t matter: Under the Electoral College system, while it counts, not every vote â€Å"matters.† For example, a Democrat’s vote in liberal-leaning California has far less effect on the election’s final outcome that it would in one of the less predictable swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. The resulting lack of interest in non-swing states contributes to America’s traditionally low voter turnout rate. The Bottom Line Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, a lengthy and often unsuccessful process. However, there are proposals to â€Å"reform† the Electoral College without abolishing it. One such movement, the National Popular Vote plan would ensure that the winner of the popular vote would also win at least enough Electoral College votes to be elected president. Another movement is attempting to convince states to split their electoral vote based on the percentage of the state’s popular vote for each candidate. Eliminating the winner-take-all requirement of the Electoral College at the state level would lessen the tendency for the swing states to dominate the electoral process. Sources and Further Reference â€Å"From Bullets to Ballots: The Election of 1800 and the First Peaceful Transfer of Political Power.† TeachingAmericanHistory.org.Hamilton, Alexander. â€Å".†The Federalist Papers: No. 68 (The Mode of Electing the President) congress.gov, Mar. 14, 1788Meko, Tim. â€Å".†How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states Washington Post (Nov. 11, 2016).

How to Fix Comma Splices Blog

How to Fix Comma Splices Blog How to Fix Comma Splices Comma splices are a common punctuation error. But would you know a comma splice if you saw one? More importantly, would you know how to fix one? If your answer to either question is â€Å"no,† then you’re in the right place. Read on to find out how to spot and fix comma splices. What Are Comma Splices? Comma splices are a type of run-on sentence. This occurs when two main clauses (i.e., full sentences that express a complete thought) are used together without the correct punctuation. In a comma splice, it is because two sentences have been joined with a comma: I love sandwiches, I eat them every day. Here, for example, â€Å"I love sandwiches† and â€Å"I eat them every day† are both full sentences. And while commas have many uses, they can’t be used to join two sentences. As such, if we see two sentences with just a comma in between them, we know we have a comma splice on our hands. If you see a comma splice in your writing, you can fix it in various ways: Placing a period between each clause Adding a coordinating conjunction after the comma Replacing the comma with a semicolon Changing the first clause into a subordinate clause We will look at each of these in a little more detail below. 1. Fixing a Comma Splice with a Period We use a period at the end of a sentence. So if we use one in place of the comma in the sentence above, we can fix the comma splice by presenting each clause as a separate sentence: I love sandwiches. I eat them every day. This is often the simplest way to fix comma splices. However, if you want to emphasize or clarify the connection between two sentences, you have a few alternatives available. 2. Fixing a Comma Splice with a Coordinating Conjunction Conjunctions are connecting words, so we can fix a comma splice by adding one after the comma: I love sandwiches, so I eat them every day. The advantage of using a conjunction is that we can show the reader how the clauses are connected. In this case we’ve used the word â€Å"so,† which means â€Å"for this reason.† We therefore know that the speaker eats sandwiches every day because of their love of bready snacks. Keep in mind, though, that we can only use coordinating conjunctions to connect two sentences. We’ll get to subordinating conjunctions later. 3. Fixing a Comma Splice with a Semicolon We can use a semicolon between two clauses to show they are related: I love sandwiches; I eat them every day. As with using â€Å"so† above, the semicolon here suggests a connection. However, the nature of the relationship here is less explicit. 4. Fixing a Comma Splice with a Subordinate Clause While commas can’t be used to connect two main clauses, they can be used when a subordinate clause comes before the main clause in a sentence. Thus, if we change the first clause in a sentence containing a comma splice into a subordinate clause, we can fix the error: Because I love sandwiches, I eat them every day. As shown above, a subordinate clause includes a subordinating conjunction – in this case, â€Å"because† – and does not form a full sentence by itself. But by changing the first clause into a subordinate clause, we now have a grammatical sentence. And the choice of subordinating conjunction here shows us the relationship between the clauses (i.e., the subordinating clause gives a reason for the main clause).