Do the events surrounding the Election of 2000 justify changes to the Electoral College? Explain why you thin?
- Anonymous3 years agoFavorite Answer
Nope. Gore did not win a mandate in 2000. He had only 48% of the popular vote which is not even considered as a victory. He also lost many critical states which meant that he was not qualified to be president.
Clinton also failed to have a majority of the popular vote in 1992. However, he did win a plurality of the states and thus was suited to be president per the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is still necessary and efficient form of elections. The origin of the electoral college was rooted in the idea that a presidential candidate must be representative of a plurality of the 50 states, not just a simple majority in some states, which can be have a tendency to be very majority-oriented and therefore tyrannical. The Electoral College protects multiple interests. Otherwise, the majority would always win, and dominate policy. That's not a true united states.
See, the electoral college protects the smaller states from becoming totally irrelevant and practically voiceless. It reweighs some individual votes, and you may somehow feel that votes have been compromised, unfairly. But think about some consequences of a popular vote as well. In effect, a popular vote could be manipulated by a few large areas of population.
In our current system, the presidential candidate has to campaign to a majority-if not all 50- states, including measly Ohio. If they only could pander to certain most popular interests alone, their policies could all be very anti environment, anti farmer, anti business, anti labor, or whatever other minorities that the simple majority is capable of making irrelevant to their winning candidate!
The electoral college protects minority states interests from being bullied by the large states.
Small states have been granted access to the process of democracy that they could otherwise be completely excluded from under a popular vote simple majority dictatorship. A popular election is hardly ever truly a level contest because the minority interests, no matter how valid they be, will always lose. Unfair dictatorships could result whereby the majority party could answer to no one, perhaps even wreck the country.
- Steven SLv 73 years ago
Yes! Why? Donald Trump!
- Weasel McWeaselLv 73 years ago
Yes.,.........but most fail to realize that the real problem of 2000 wasn't the electoral count, per se..........which would have eventually worked itself out............
but that the Supreme Court, was obligated, by existing law, to draw a line under the re-counts by Dec. 12.
they were FORCED to call a halt at that point.-..... at a point when the count was only temporarily in Dubya's favor.
had they been allowed to finish the recounts...........Gore actually had more votes.............would have won Florida's electoral votes......and therefore been president.
The real culprit there............was the law on the books, that stated all recounts MUST be done by Dec 12th.
The recounts should have continued, until there was a clear, acceptable answer.
Gore was flat out robbed.