Respuesta :
1. It removes states from the race, electoral campaigning isn’t done in California, Idaho, Washington,etc because they are only done by majority vote.
2. Makes it possible to have a tie. If there is a tie the vote goes to the legislators but only majority of legislators are needed to pick the president, this did happen in the race between Burr and Jefferson.
3. It eliminates third parties. There is a winner takes all system with electoral votes. 1992 Perot won 18.9% of votes as a third party candidate but got no electoral votes which make him lose to Clinton.
4. If electoral votes weren’t in the constitution it possibly could be unconstitutional. State mandated districts should be equal to population, so everyone’s votes would count the same in state elections.
5. Put direct elections at same standards as local and state level. Voters vote for local, state, and congress that effect the outcomes of elections but the electoral vote can change the outcome of those elections because it’s not just up to the people
2. Makes it possible to have a tie. If there is a tie the vote goes to the legislators but only majority of legislators are needed to pick the president, this did happen in the race between Burr and Jefferson.
3. It eliminates third parties. There is a winner takes all system with electoral votes. 1992 Perot won 18.9% of votes as a third party candidate but got no electoral votes which make him lose to Clinton.
4. If electoral votes weren’t in the constitution it possibly could be unconstitutional. State mandated districts should be equal to population, so everyone’s votes would count the same in state elections.
5. Put direct elections at same standards as local and state level. Voters vote for local, state, and congress that effect the outcomes of elections but the electoral vote can change the outcome of those elections because it’s not just up to the people