California Essay, Research Paper
Peter Robinson
Analyze the operation of the Electoral College in Presidential elections and see the position that a campaigner who can non win California can non win the Presidency. In what ways has the balance of power in the Electoral College shifted in recent old ages?
In the USA they have a individually elected leader that does non sit in either the Senate or in the House of Representatives. Presidential elections occur stiffly every four old ages and utilize the Electoral College system, which is a fluctuation of the first-past-the-post system. In each of the 50 states a direct ballot is held, there would usually be 2 or 3 campaigners that would run in every province and some that would merely run in certain countries e.g. George Wallace in 1968. The ballots in each province are so counted and a victor for that province is declared. That campaigner will so have all the Electoral College ballots allocated to that peculiar province. Electoral College ballots are determined by the figure of representatives that province has in the House of Representatives, which are allocated depending on the size of the province population. For illustration a big province like California has 52 representatives which means that it has 52 EC ballots, plus 1 for each of it s 2 senators, doing a sum of 54 EC ballots. Even the provinces with a comparatively infinitesimal population, such as Alaska, receive 3 EC ballots ( one for its representative and 2 for its senators ) . When all the provinces have counted their ballots and announced the province victor, so the EC ballots for each victor are added up. The campaigner that achieves more than 270 EC ballots will go the following President. This electoral system has many critics, among the unfavorable judgments are that it is unrepresentative and gives smaller provinces excessively much influence. However there are besides criticisms that the larger provinces have excessively much influence and that the smaller states become less of import.
It has been said that a campaigner that does non win California will happen it really hard to win the presidential election. This has some component of truth in it because the 54 EC ballots held presently by California equates to approximately one ten percent of Electoral College ballots. By non winning this province a terrible disability is placed upon the campaigner, but it is evidently still possible to win the election every bit long as the bulk of the other larger provinces are won, e.g. Texas ( 32 EC Votes ) , New York ( 33 ) and Florida ( 25 ) . In recent old ages, nevertheless merely Jimmy Carter in 1976 managed to win while non wining in California. This proves that while it is a large encouragement to win in California it is non perfectly necessary. It besides shows that the smaller provinces are good protected
under this system, as Carter would hold had to win rather a batch of the smaller provinces to do up for the loss of California.
Every decennary there is a national nose count in the US, and from these figures the figure of representatives per province is calculated, any alterations of which will besides ensue in a alteration in the figure of EC ballots per province. As the US develops it becomes less reliant on industry, with most new occupations being created in the service sector. This gradual alteration has seen a migration of people from the industrialist North to the heater climates of the South, where many of the new occupations are. While the general tendency in the US is a growing in population, the northern provinces are non turning by the same sum as the southern provinces. This means that they lost representatives and hence have besides lost EC ballots. Between 1970 and 1990 New York province s population grew by up to 15 % , this is bantam compared to provinces like California which have seen population growing of over 50 % . In Ohio, another province to lose ballots, the population has really decreased by up to 5 % . Detroit is a good illustration of a northern industrial metropolis, between 1970 and 1990 its population dropped by 31 % , while southern metropoliss such as Phoenix and San Diego have seen rises in population of 69 % and 64 % severally. These population alterations show that there is a turning divide between the comfortable South and the industrial North, this position is backed up by the reallocation of EC ballots with many northern provinces losing ballots to southern provinces. This displacement in the balance of power agencies that run schemes for the two chief parties in the US have now changed. Many Northerners are traditionally Democrats, but with so many migrating to the more Republican South, it means that provinces such as California and Florida are now more likely to swing to the Democrats. Arizona is a all right illustration of these immense swings in voting behavior, of all time since the 1940 s it has been staunchly Republican, but in 1996 the Democrats won it. These alterations have besides gone in the other way. States that used to hold merely a Republican minority now find that they are the bulk because so many Democrats have moved south. States in the mid-west such as Kansas and Wyoming now tend to favor the Republicans alternatively of the Democrats. As a consequence of the alterations to the population run schemes have apparently been about reversed, with Republicans now aiming the North for seats, while the Democrats are now runing more to a great extent in the South.
The balance of power in the Electoral College has now shifted off from the smaller populated northern provinces, such as Wyoming and Alaska, towards the larger southern provinces, such as California, Texas and Florida.
