Thursday, November 15, 2007
Step Three: Brief
In my arguing and mediating blog I chose the topic of the Electoral Process. I believe that the election of the President of the United States is unfair and the election should be decided by popular vote. My first reason, is that the Electoral College was formed by the Founding Fathers as a means to elect the President, because the Founding Fathers did not feel that the general public were educated enough to vote directly for a president. However, in today’s world the general public has access to the internet and newspapers, which provide a way to find out information about the running candidates. Therefore, the public is educated enough to decide on their own who should be the President. My second reason is that the Electoral College has flaws in it that could send a candidate to the White House who is not the true winner of the election. For example, if one candidate does not receive at least 270 votes, then the Congress is selected to choose the next President. Due to a majority of a certain political party, a candidate with lesser votes could reach the White House. My third reason is that a third-party candidate is given enough power to disrupt the election under the Electoral College system, due to the third-party candidate taking necessary electoral votes. My final reason is that in the 2000 Presidential Elections, Al Gore received a majority of the popular votes, but he was not elected to the White House.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your final reason about the 2000 election is just an example and not a reason. Make sure you are as specific as possible regarding your evidence and reasons.
I disagree with this argument on several accounts. First of all, the assertion that the Electoral College causes the Presidential election to be unfair is merely an opinion, and I believe that the evidence used to support it is questionable. One of the reasons for this is that I disagree with the motive of the Founding Fathers for the creation of this system. I believe they created it to maintain a certain degree of balance in the power of the states, which is quite different than a belief in the lack of knowledge among the general public. Another statement that I disagree with is that “...the Electoral College has flaws in it that could send a candidate to the White House who is not the true winner of the election.” This statement is slightly confusing because the phrase “true winner” is used. As of right now, the “true winner” is determined by the Electoral College because it is part of the Constitution of the United States of America. This needs to be made clearer, and some authority needs to be presented in order to validate such a bold statement. Lastly, I disagree that third-party candidates can make a more significant impact on the election under the Electoral Process than they would be able to with a strictly popular vote. These candidates rarely achieve the electoral votes of a state, but several have received a fair percentage of the popular vote.
In your last sentence--"but several have received..."--confuses me a bit. I don't know if you are suggesting some negotiable ideas on the topic or if you have just misrepresented your idea. Either way this will become clearer after the negotiation and on into the mediation. Nice job.
Post a Comment