Haifa Nesheiwat

POLS 155
05/05/2014

Campaign Paper

The single greatest problem with the United States Elections is seen in the

representation problems, such as the lack of candidate or party choice. We have a two

party system where if a third president wanted to run it would be difficult for him to do

so. The president with the greater number of electoral votes would win the election. Fifty

one percent or more compounds are needed by the running candidate to wind the

electoral vote for the state. However, we have seen in over the decades of our history, the

candidates who have achieved this electoral vote have not become president. For

example, Take Andrew Jackson, he won the popular vote, Electoral College vote, and did

not make presidency. Before I begin to elaborate about the problem, one must first know

the education of the Electoral College. Each state has representative who would act in the

citizens (of the state represented) best interest. Since our system acts a two party

candidate, this would not allow much room for other parties to be nominated. In fact, it

discourages the need for “third-party system”.

So how would this reflect a whole vote for the constituents? It does not. Yes, it is

no question that this system does keep a stable and federal system in check. It does not

allow room for other candidates, whom are from rural areas or minority groups, to have a

say. It lacks a voice for that group or others like these groups. For example, the Voting

Rights Act of 1965 was supposed to eliminate the efforts to disenfranchise African

Americans. In 2013, that act was overturned by the Shelby County. The Voting Rights

Act 1975 extended protection to language barriers or those unheard minorities, such as

1
Asians/ Latin Americans and American Indians. Essentially, what the Voting Rights Act

illuminated was to allow minorities the right of participation in primary elections where

they are able to select its nominees. This is important because it decides who are

candidates are and it would prevent lack of representation. Minorities in modern day

suffer this is issue like we have seen throughout history.

Presidential elections are held every Tuesday. People vote for a president who

may run for two terms if reelected. The House of Representatives is based of the state’s

size or the population. Members of each state elect electors. These representatives act as a

voice to silent states. States, also, are limited to one representative to have as member in

the House of Representatives. Then we have the senate that is based of the population

size of that representing state. Such stability in this nation is due to the socially and

politically debates amongst ideas from the founding fathers. In sum, advocates disagree

that the Electoral College maintains an equal representation. The structure of the federal

system is significant for it dictates what rights the states have and do not have.

Regardless of the size of people in each state, the Senate would represent each state

equally. To conclude, the Electoral College decides the presidential winner for that state.

Should states just remove the Senate’s position if it does not represent the population of

the state but rather acts as a voice for that state? The fact of the matter is, the founding

fathers spent many ideas and designs for a democracy, and to remove any seat of office

would cause much harm to the individual states.