The electoral college was created as one of many methods for electing the Presidents. It is one of the most efficient voting methods and has proven to on many occasions that it is the ultimate one. To determine the president, five hundred thirty-eight electors from the states cast a ballot for the candidate receiving the majority support. For any election having the majority vote can affect someone’s campaign greatly. The number of electoral votes each state has depends on the amount of people found within the state. For example, Texas has thirty eight electoral votes while a less populated states like Wyoming has only three electoral votes. A majority of electoral votes are required to win which is currently two hundred seventy electoral votes. There are flaws in every system, and our electoral college has many. However, a system is better than having no system. It is one of the biggest controversial debates in government, and people think we should use the popular vote, but as a matter of fact we should not use it. We should keep the electoral college because it guarantees the certainty to the presidential outcome, ensures that all parts of the country are involved, and it facilitates a two-party system.
The electoral college guarantees the certainty to the presidential outcome. The electoral college because was created for the precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections. A runoff election is an initial vote that did not result in a winner because it was tied or too close to call. It also creates a larger mandate that gives the president more credibility. “In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only five times.” (Electoral College Fast Facts) Over 90 percent of the election had the electoral and the popular votes going to the same candidate. While the electoral colleges have some flaws it seems to be in working condition. The electoral college makes presidential elections less contentious, and confusing by providing a clear ending. We do not need a national recount if you have an electoral college, if one state is having voting problems you will only need to do a recount within that state. If we had to do a national recount that would be a fiasco and it would increase chances of fraud. The electoral college ensures a certainty of return results because it is concentrated, and the results of the electoral decision are final. Even though there are still some flaws in the electoral college the flaws seem less drastic than other voting methods. This voting system guarantees the most credible presidential outcome.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
The electoral college ensures that all parts of the country are involved. The electoral college guarantees that the smaller states have a part in it too. If it was based on popular vote than candidates would only have to campaign in the heavily populated states. Presidential candidates would need multiple electoral votes from different regions. They will need to build a platform for their campaign. Candidates would only need to meet the needs of the heavy populated states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Than smaller states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota would not have a say in the election if it is based on popular vote. In the populated states, it is mostly urban areas while in the smaller states, areas found within the state can be described as rural. It gives minority interest a say in the election such as farmers. So, they have different views, but for the rural areas they would not have a say in it if it was based on popular vote. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disfranchised to feel that their votes do not count as much as other states. One of the main flaws about the electoral colleges is the whole swing states debate. Swing states are states that regularly are close in the election and do not have a regular party. The debate is that a state can have fifty-one percent of the population vote for one candidate, but he will receive one hundred percent of the electoral votes. People feel that it is unfair for the candidate to receive all of the votes. Even though this is major flaw I think it is little compared to the other voting systems. The presidential candidate will have no regard for theirs interest because it will not affect the outcome of their campaign. This helps promote national cohesion and helps keep the nation’s political system stable.
The electoral college also facilitates a two-party system. The smaller number of political parties allows for generalized platforms instead of parties focused on specific issues. “It is very hard for a third party to break through at the national level. The last time a third party gained an electoral vote was George Wallace in 1968” (About the Electors). This means there is a certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up winning the presidential election. It also can increase the risk for a third party to spoil a candidate’s chance of winning, which can discourage people from voting for third-party candidate. A two-party system gives more space for flexibility and changes. It is winner takes all for the states, and their candidate will have a better chance of winning. Most of the time a third party will conform with republican or democrat just to have a voice and gain important objectives. The two major parties will allow this because they will gain more votes. One of the great things about the two-party system is that it makes it easier on the voters. They must choose between the two major parties. Some people do not see the two-party system as a pro thought. Because it limits options and they feel like the parties are very similar. They rather have multiple parties, but the two-party system keeps American politics stable and candidates to the political center. The electoral college promotes a two-party system which helps our voting rather than having a dozen parties.
Just like any system in the world the electoral college supposedly has many “flaws”. When thinking of the many flaws it has, one major criticism is one that just happened recently. In 2016, the election was finally ending, and many people knew without a shadow of doubt that Hillary was going to win. Their reasoning, she won the popular vote. But to their amazement Donald Trump had been declared the winner and the President of The United States. For people who didn’t understand how the voting system worked, this must had been a big shock to them. So, assuming that popularity votes were more important they became angry at the electoral college. Why do these members vote matter more than the people? Is what they said. They matter more because technically “They’re the people’s votes” (What is the Electoral College). When voting for your presidential candidate, you are also voting for the state’s electors too. So, when asking who gives the electoral that much power, the only people you have to blame is the people of the state.
Additionally, many people say we should get rid of the electoral college because without it all the states would have a balance. But this statement is far from the truth. As mentioned above candidates would only need to meet the needs of the heavy populated states. This would mean smaller states would have smaller say. The power of people in those states would become obsolete and the election in general would fail. For example, if we were to get rid of the electoral college, states like Rhode Island with a population of one million people would have far less power compared with a state like Texas with a population of over twenty-eight million. You would only need states that are heavily populated. Thanks to the electoral college things like this are evened out and we don’t have to worry about them. Now I am not saying that the electoral colleges is a perfect system with no flaws at all. But many things people consider flaws are things that can be easily dismissed when you think about it. The electoral college isn’t a perfect system, but it’s the closest thing we have to one.
We should keep the electoral college because it guarantees the certainty to the presidential outcome, ensures that all parts of the country are involved, and it facilitates a two-party system. The electoral college has proven that it is the best voting system to use. The electoral college has been used for over two hundred years, and has only had five little flaws. While if you use any other voting system it will have many more. Why change something if it has worked over two hundred years? No matter what voting systems we use, there will always be arguments over it. Unless there’s a newer more efficient voting system we will continue using the electoral college. There is no need to change the voting system.
Quiet On The Western Front By Erich Maria Remarque
All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, talks about a soldier’s perspective and experiences of World War I. It is narrated through the first-person perspective of a soldier named Paul Bäumer, the novel allows the audience to see the benefits and drawbacks of the war. Mostly resulting in drawbacks, the readers see how people lose their lives and get severely injured.
In All Quiet on the Western Front, the reader reads about Paul’s friend passing away due to his amputated thigh. It’s a tear-jerking scene as it goes on to explain how Paul reacts, saying, “I tremble with rage as I go along with the orderly. The man looks at me and says: “… to-day alone there have been sixteen deaths- yours is the seventeenth. There will probably be twenty altogether-” I become faint, all at once I cannot do anymore. I won’t revile any more, it is senseless, I could drop down and never rise again. We are by Kemmerich’s bed. He is dead” (32). In this scene, Paul is angry with how passive the doctor acted. Even the reader feels upset at how the doctor behaved about Kemmerich’s death, and feels empathy for Paul. Losing a close friend can be scary and difficult to go through. Soldiers losing their limbs and dying, even while in the hospital, often happened during World War I. According to a eHISTORY article, “bloody fingers were often used as probes…doctors operated in pus stained coats. Everything about Civil War surgery was septic… If a soldier survived the table, he faced the awful surgical fevers. However, about 75% of amputees did survive” (Goellnitz). The Civil War was not too far from World War I, and not much had changed since the Civil War. Hygiene was still fairly neglected, as the correlation between infections that set quickly in the dirty hospitals and injuries and amputation procedures, weren’t thought of; and the tools used for amputations weren’t like the tools used today. In result, there were deaths in the hospital not only because of their injuries, but because of diseases in the hospital. Although 75% of amputees survived, there is still 25% that did not. Those that did not manage to live, were unable to contact their families and bid a final farewell. Their families must have anticipated their return, only to conclude that their loved one was not going to return from the war, either from waiting for weeks upon weeks, or from asking other soldiers about their loved one. It’s heartbreaking, but true. The many lives lost is a drawback from the war- any war- especially from World War I, as it was the war that had the largest numbers of injuries and deaths compared to other wars.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
In the novel, it also describes a time where Paul and some of his soldier friends get to the front, and encounter shell bombings. It’s hectic and the reader feels the sense of urgency. After the gunshots and bombs finally quiet down and come to a stop, Paul and his comrades spot a recruit, hip covered in blood. Paul narrates, “We lay his hip bare. It is one mass of mince-meat and bone splinters. The joint has been hit. He won’t walk anymore” (71). Descriptive imagery is used, and paints a rather brutal image into the reader’s mind, causing the reader to shudder and feel remorse for the recruit, frightful at how badly he’s injured. Soldiers get severely injured, and most became handicapped because of the war. According to an article from the NCBI, “the First World War produced a huge number of disabled soldiers. During the war, surgeons realized that it was not enough to merely treat the limbs of the wounded soldiers; it was also necessary to train them to use their remaining abilities to their greatest capacity. Governments at the same time realized that such a high number of veterans created a financial burden, by entitling disabled veterans to full healthcare, raising the issues of social welfare” (Bonfiglioli S. et.al). The war caused many casualties, and many were injured to the point of becoming disabled. The aftermaths of the war not only included disabilities and pain, but also the realization for improvements of medical treatments and social welfare. Even though governments came to that realization, the fact there were many casualties in the war, leaving many unable to use parts of their body still stands. The process they had to go through when they were amputated was rather cruel, and one cannot imagine how painful it must have felt to have their limbs sawed off after they may have gotten shot from the battlefield. Such losses and pain proves how war is not a friendly battle, and seeing how it’s had such a negative impact on the soldiers, it’s seen as a major harmful drawback that war provides.
Although there are negative drawbacks of war, there are also some benefits to war. A benefit from the war includes improvements in medicine. As stated by an article from NCBI, “The last years (1917-1918) were marked by the arrival of the American Army in France, with a growing medical influence of American doctors. Oswald Robertson introduced the use of citrated blood in glass bottles, being subsequently called “the first blood banker”. Blood transfusion remained throughout the war infrequent and technically imperfect” (Aymard, Renaudier). Another article from NCBI states, “US Army Captain Oswald Hope Robertson showed that stored, syphilis-tested, universal donor whole blood could be given quickly and safely in forward medical units. With these demonstrations, the Royal Army Medical Corps adopted transfusion and declared it the most important medical advance of the war” (Stansbury, Hess). Blood transfusion is the process of transferring blood of one person, into the veins of another person. This method was used and somewhat refined during its use in World War I. After blood transfusion proved to be rather helpful in the medical field, it has been bettered throughout the years, and is now used in hospitals. Today, blood transfusion is much safer, and is given through an intravenous (IV) line. Without the use and slight improvement of blood transfusion during World War I, advances in the transfusion of blood may have came in later years, and the people of today may still be looking for ways to enhance its use. Therefore, wars can have benefits, one benefit being its result of medical advances.
Through the character Paul Bäumer, the reader sees the flaws of war. The loss of people, as well as those that get severely injured, are disadvantages of war. However, it is also seen that a benefit of war includes advances in medicine.
