Although Native Americans have lived in this country far longer than people of European colonial descent, they were only granted American citizenship in 1924. Despite their status as citizens, Natives have the lowest voter turnout in the country-- one in three eligible adults are not registered to vote. And even if they technically can vote, many obstacles still stand between Native American people and the ballot box.

Indigenous people living on reservations face significant challenges casting a legitimate vote. Permanent house addresses do not exist on many Native reservations, so in many cases people whose only form of identification is their tribal ID-- an type of ID specific to those living under the laws of a reservation-- will be denied their right to vote because a permanent address is required. In many cases, “government entities have in their records an address that was arbitrarily assigned to people with non-standard addresses, and that address does not match another assigned address on a different government list.” (Schroedel). In North Dakota, a state with a native population of 6.48%-- number six in the list of states with the highest number of Native citizens-- the situation is dire. According to NPR, “[t]ens of thousands of North Dakotans, including Native and non-Native residents, do not have residential addresses on their IDs and will now find it harder to vote.” (Domonoske). Although they are given alternatives, legislation fails to take into account how many natives actually have access to these: “They will have the option of proving their residency with ‘supplemental documentation,’ like utility bills, but according to court records, about 18,000 North Dakotans don't have those documents, either.” (Domonoske). Tribal identification will hold up in local elections, but will not be accepted in general elections, making it extremely difficult for many members of Native reservations to have a say in the selecting of a president. 

So what can be expected to happen during the upcoming election? One anticipated problem comes with mail-in voting, which can be difficult for people in reservations: “most reservations do not have home mail delivery. Instead, people need to travel to post offices or postal provide sites – little places that offer minimal mail services and are located in places like gas stations and mini-marts. Take the Navajo Nation that encompasses 27,425 square miles – it’s larger than West Virginia, yet there are only 40 places where people can send and receive mail. In West Virginia, there are 725. Not a single PO box on the Navajo Nation has 24-hour access.” (Schroedel). Because of the pandemic, many are not comfortable with voting in-person, but mail-in voting may not be accessible. In some cases, it won’t even be possible-- in South Dakota, mail-in ballots require a notary, but there are no notaries on Native American reservations. Mail also takes days, sometimes weeks, longer to arrive at its destination when it is mailed from a reservation than from somewhere on the mainland. 

The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) passed in Montana was created to introduce security requirements and establish penalties for breaking those requirements. Though it was eventually struck down this year, the act restricted the number of ballots collectors could gather from 100 ballots to 6. It was struck down because the act made it harder for Native Americans to vote due to the difficulty of getting to the polls from the reservations which, in turn, suppressed the Native American vote.

Though Trump has done some things for Native Americans, during Obama’s time in office, he introduced countless initiatives to support Indigenous communities, such as government-to-government relationships between the US government and tribal governments, and the “Generation-Indiginous” initiative, which worked to support Native American youth. Biden plans to go even further in respects to supporting Native Americans across the country. Not only does Biden have a whole section of his website dedicated to his plan for tribal nations [www.joebiden.com/tribalnations], but his plans are very thorough. They include: “Provide reliable, affordable, quality health care and address health disparities”, “Strengthen the Nation-to-Nation relationship”, and most importantly, “Ensure Native Americans can exercise their right to vote”. Voting right now may not be fair and equal, but hopefully in the future we can change this by electing a President that cares about Native American’s right to vote, and their rights in general.

Map of Reservation Land in the U.S.

Modern political polls are conducted through numerous methods including through landlines using a random digit dial system and online polls. Each method has its own biases and limitations. For example, a disproportionate number of Republicans have landlines so phone survey participants are not a representative sample of the national population. Additionally, individuals with fewer responsibilities are more likely to respond to pollsters which skews the data towards the views of older and white voters. There is also a significant variance in sample sizes between different polls. That being said, larger data sets are not necessarily a sign of more reliable results because polls with huge samples often use cheap and problematic sampling methods. Pollsters then take the raw data and weigh it by age, race, gender, education level, etc. to more accurately predict overall voter opinion. 

It is important for voters to accurately interpret and understand the limitations of polls so we are not lulled into a false sense of security about the outcome of an election. In 2016, polls put Clinton at a 3 point lead (only 1 percent different from her 2 point win in the final vote) and predicted Trump had a 1 in 3 chance of winning. Even though these numbers do not suggest a landslide vote, public opinion interpreted these polls as a highly likely victory for Clinton which reduced voter turnout. This discrepancy in the predicted outcome and the final result also made many voters lose faith in polling even though the vote share polls were quite accurate. As for limitations, national polls can be quite accurate in identifying Americans’ preferred candidate but fail to identify the winner of the electoral college since pollsters do not focus on voters in swing states. Additionally, it is difficult for pollsters to predict discrepancies in voter turnout which significantly impact the outcome of an election. For example, in 2016, undecided voters ultimately broke heavily for Trump and turnout was higher than expected in many rural counties but lower in urban areas which pollsters did not account for in their predictions. 

Research has shown that voters often conform to majority opinion because of peer pressure and a desire to be on the winning side. As a result, polls can be self-fulfilling prophecies and suppress minority opinions. Research also shows that when the public is told a candidate is extremely likely to win, people are less likely to vote. For example, some people stayed home in 2016 because they thought the outcome was already decided. Interestingly though the study also found that while probabilistic forecasts suppressed voter turnout, voter percentage forecasts did not. This may be a result of poll illiteracy because the study also found 40% of the participants of the study confused vote share and probability interpreting 70% chance of wining to mean 70% of the vote. Wary of the effects polls can have on voter behavior, some countries, including Canada, have banned publishing polls in the immediate lead up to elections. However, this too can result in issues. For example, without polling to report on, journalists are more likely to turn to other less direct measures of a candidate’s strength such as donations or endorsements to make weak predictions about the outcome of the race.

Sources:
Cassino, Dan. "How Today's Political Polling Works." Harvard Business Review Home, August 1, 2016. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://hbr.org/2016/08/how-todays-political-polling-works.

 

Deane, Claudia. "A Field Guide to Polling: Election 2020 Edition." Pew Research. Last modified November 2019. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2019/11/19/a-field-guide-to-polling-election-2020-edition/.

 

Feder, Elah, and Ira Flatow. "Should We Stop Paying Attention to Election Forecasts?" October 23, 2020. In Science Friday. Podcast, audio, 17:24. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/election-forecasts/.

 

Kennedy, Courtney. "Key things to know about election polling in the United States." Pew Research Center. Last modified August 5, 2020. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/05/key-things-to-know-about-election-polling-in-the-united-states/.

 

Koerth, Maggie. "Does Knowing Whom Others Might Vote For Change Whom You'll Vote For?" FiveThirtyEight. Last modified December 5, 2019. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-knowing-whom-others-might-vote-for-change-whom-youll-vote-for/.

 

Westwood, Sean Jeremy. "Projecting Confidence: How the Probabilistic Horse Race Confuses and Demobilizes the Public." University of Chicago Press Journal, October 2020. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1086/708682.

Swing States:
Another topic for debate regards swing states. Swing states are formed when the population of that particular state shifts (leaving more room for political change), when many citizens are moderate, or due to the action of parties dividing (ideological polarization). There can also be many combinations of all of these factors. All forms of swing states create battlegrounds for presidential candidates, concluding in swinging in either direction, as it's anyone's game. Candidates tend to pour time and effort into the states they think they could persuade and usually do not try to “win over” states that stereotypically vote a particular way, as there is little use in trying to change a viewpoint of that state. This is also true for states that normally go for them. Swing states often determine who wins the election, which can be perceived as unjust. The predicted swing states for this upcoming election, November 4th, 2020, are as follows: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

"Winner Takes All" Policy: 

Based on the information above, you may be wondering: Does my vote even count? Yes it does! Even if your vote is a small percentage of another, it still counts towards your preferred candidate and amplifies your beliefs. However, there are some factors which can make your vote less powerful. A key factor that must be taken into consideration is the fact that 48 out of 50 states vote under a “winner takes all” policy. This ensures that whichever candidate wins the state, they take all the votes from the state and apply it towards their delegates, even if not every citizen voted for them. For instance, the result could be 49.9 to 50.1, and the candidate with a 50.1 would still take every single vote. Once again, this form of the election can be seen as an inequitable result. 

Own Personal Opinions Based off my Research: 
Relating to all of these important topics mentioned above, I would like to express my own opinions about these key points, also stating my suggestions of change to further improve our democracy. Personally, I believe the Electoral College should be abolished, as it does not depict everyones’ vote or opinion properly. Many times, it actually completely misrepresents them. I think hearing from all the people and not just the winners of each state would greatly benefit this country as a whole, unifying the peoples voices. Additionally, I believe that eradication of swing states would enable our candidates to focus more on the entire country rather than just a few states that would give them the victory. This way, it is more about the people than the election. Furthermore, I believe the “winner takes all” mentality should be disbanded, as doing so would rightfully express the decision of each citizen, even if their vote does not correlate to the majority vote. Overall, I believe changing the system to popular vote would be more representative of who we are as a nation, potentially inspiring other countries to follow our morals that can make our country thrive. 

Works Cited: 
Aidan Hurff: 

Ella Fairchild: 

To get a technical definition, a democracy is typically described as a government ruled by the people via either themselves directly or through elected officials. The former is described as a direct democracy, and the latter is a representative democracy. A structure that borrows aspects from both kinds is known as liquid democracy.

Some parts of the definition of democracy fit the governmental structure of the United States, yet some contradict it. Direct democracy is when all of the power is given to the people. We are not a direct democracy. The citizens of the country do not make the laws nor decide policies. Rather, we vote for elected officials who establish those rules. The issue with this, although it fits into the definition of democracy, is that each individual vote in America has been proven time and time again to not have the same power and value. For example, wealthy companies and people completely control and influence politics nowadays. A large part of running for candidacy is raising money to fund the campaign. When the candidate is elected, their largest donors influence the way they create policies. 

Although it may not be as direct as “let me pay you this amount of money for you to make this law that will benefit my company”, candidates, who depend on big money in order to succeed, “pass laws with a keen awareness of what their major donors want. Rather than solely considering the interests of their constituents, legislators must be aware of how their vote on any single piece of legislation will affect their campaign contributions in the next election cycle.” The candidates constantly have money on their minds. As a matter of fact, “congressional representatives spend 30 hours a week raising money.” “Citizens Take Action” published an article which dives into the issue of having big money in politics. They argue that because of big money in politics “our government does not truly work for us anymore… So many of us begin to tune out because following politics is simply too depressing and we no longer feel that our involvement matters. That is perhaps the ultimate price we pay due to big money in politics; it makes us stop believing that we truly can make a difference.” 

Democracy relies on the civil duties of citizens to vote and participate in our government yet money in politics divides people and inherently causes less voter turnout, defeating the purpose of a true democracy. Arguably, because money and wealthy people have such an influence in politics, the American government could be defined as an oligarchy. An oligarchic government is defined as a government-run by a small group of people, in this case, the rich. Yet, because our government allows all citizens to vote it does not fit this definition completely rather our democracy derives partly from an oligarchic government. 

Another reason the United States government is not a true democracy is because of minority vs. majority rule: the majority makes the ultimate decision but basic human rights are always abided by, ultimately benefiting the minority. “Democracy in Brief”, a government article, lays out what democracy looks like and how it works. It argues that democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule with minority rights. Because the majority rule by itself is undemocratic -for example deciding laws given a 51-49 vote is unfair- a democracy protects and guarantees basic human rights to assist the minority. Yet, in America, we run on a minority rule. The electoral college gives more representation, arguably overrepresentation, to smaller, less populated states. We argue overrepresentation because the way in which the government decides the number of electoral votes given to each state is done through a headcount of the population. The headcount is done through a census yet many people are hesitant to or less likely to fill out the census if they are poor and/or immigrants. Those populations tend to be in larger populated areas and cities and so therefore the more rural areas receive more votes. Consequently, less populated states end up having more “say” in the presidential election than largely populated states. Although majority rule has it’s issues, (giving power to the majority has not always proven fair/successful throughout history) it is a key part of the definition of democracy, and so without it, we are not a democratic country. 

So America doesn’t really fit neatly into one category of government or the other. Rather than being a true democracy or a true version of any other system, America is more of an amalgamation of many other organized political mechanisms. What does this mean for us? 

The United States must take a step back and re-examine its relationship with democracy. As a country, we pride ourselves so heavily on having a political structure meant to give everyone an equal and fair say in the world around them, but we can’t continue to inflate our collective egos about something we do not possess. As long as we continue to let things such as money, power, and greed infiltrate and infect the process in which the common people have the ability to contribute to how the world around them works, America is going to remain far from our democratic values. We need to ask ourselves- are we willing to let this prolonged? Will we slide further towards an oligarchy, or are we finally ready to try and establish a truly money-free democracy run by the people? One thing is for sure, the claim that America is a truly democratic country remains false.  

Works Cited:

References

2020. Democracy In Brief. [ebook] pp.1-39. Available at: <https://kr.usembassy.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/75/2017/04/Democracy-in-Brief_kor-1.pdf> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Cbsnews.com. 2020. Are Members Of Congress Becoming Telemarketers?. [online] Available at: <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers/> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Citizens Take Action. 2020. The Problem Of Big Money In Politics, Explained - Citizens Take Action. [online] Available at: <https://citizenstakeaction.org/the-problem/> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Jones, N. and Gee, A., 2020. Is America An Oligarchy Dominated By Billionaires?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/sep/26/america-oligarchy-dominated-billionaires-big-money-series> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Madison, J., 2020. The Avalon Project : The Federalist Papers No. 10. [online] Avalon.law.yale.edu. Available at: <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Mounk, Y., 2020. America Is Not A Democracy. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Moyo, D., 2020. America’s Decaying Democracy. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/06/07/american-democracy/> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Nytimes.com. 2020. Opinion | End Minority Rule. [online] Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/opinion/sunday/disenfranchisement-democracy-minority-rule.html?referringSource=articleShare> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Nytimes.com. 2020. Opinion | The United States Has Never Truly Been A Democracy (Published 2019). [online] Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/opinion/democracy-electoral-college.html> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

Volokh, E., 2015. Is The United States Of America A Republic Or A Democracy?. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/> [Accessed 29 October 2020].

            This year, in the 2020 presidential election the Massachusetts Ballot questions were 1) An Extension on the Right to Repair, and 2) Implementing Ranked Choice Voting. The extension on the Right to Repair legislation makes it so that starting with the model year 2022, the proposed law would require manufacturers of motor vehicles sold in Massachusetts that use wireless data transmission about the vehicle's mechanics to have that data accessible to the owner. With the vehicle owner's consent, independent repair places could access this data as well. Under this proposed law, authorization by the manufacturer before accessing this data would not be required.
  The addition of Ranked Voting in Massachusetts could help make local politics less polarized. You wouldn’t just have to choose one candidate to vote for, as you could list many candidates in order from first to last. The way it would work is “If one candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate reaches a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and those who voted for him or her as their first choice will have their second choice counted instead. This process continues until a candidate reaches a majority of votes.”(Boston Globe) Essentially, first-choice votes would be similar to how votes are today, where if one candidate gets 50% of the population's first choice votes they would be elected. If no candidate gets the majority, the candidate with the least votes gets eliminated. The people who voted the eliminated candidate as their first choice would now get their second choice votes turned into first-choice votes. This continues until someone wins the election.

            What would it mean if you vote yes on question 1? Dealers would provide vehicle owners and independent repair facilities with expanded access to wirelessly transmitted data about the vehicle's mechanics. If you don't want this to happen, a no vote will keep everything the same. With ranked voting, it would change from being just about whoever receives the majority of the vote to, if there isn’t a majority vote, the election would depend on first choices. What would it mean if you vote for yes on question 2? Well, according to Andrew Yang, “it could help prevent evermore polarized election campaigns, increase the number of women and minority candidates running for office, and reduce negative campaigning.” It would change the way elections are handled and make it so that you vote for multiple candidates in a ranked order. Like question 1, though, if you vote no, nothing will change.

            What are your thoughts on these ballot questions? Are you for or against them? Do they make sense? Take our quiz below!

USAToday: How Polls Work 

Pew Research: Can We Still Trust Polls? 

Pew Research: Key things to know about election polling in the United States 

Pew Research: Use of election forecasts in campaign coverage can confuse voters and may lower turnout

Fivethirtyeight: Does Knowing Whom Others Might Vote For Change Whom You’ll Vote For? (looks at policies on polling in other countries)

 

Science Friday: Should We Stop Paying Attention To Election Forecasts?

Spectrum News 13: Margin of Error: How Political Polling Really Works 

         Not only is the 2020 election threatened by Iran's meddling efforts but additionally by Russia’s. Russia poses a greater threat than Iran because they have considerable experience in hacking elections as we saw in the 2016 election when they damaged the Clinton campaign, boosted Donald Trump's candidacy, and incited social and political discord in the US. This election year, American Intelligence Agencies have found that Russia is hacking into local and state authorities and systems. Their motivation is to gather information that is the most accessible and to see how far their reach is. The director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Christopher C. Krebs, has informed the public by explaining that Russia is not specifically targeting battleground states. Despite Mr Krebs statement, there is still fear that Russia could do so in the future. Russia could also potentially create discord and confusion in America if the election results are not decided on November the 3rd and results are contested. 

        Additionally, Russia has been successful in breaking into local computer networks pertaining to voting records. They plan on planting propaganda in the news to boost Trump's narrative that if he doesn't win, the election was rigged. If Russia's claim is believed by the US, it could potentially inflame the narrative of voter fraud, specifically around mail in ballots. This could create further conflict within the US about the election causing even more of a divide between citizens. By installing fear in people, this could lead the US to believe that countries like Russia and Iran have greater power in our system than they had originally thought. Although Russia will not be able to directly change people's votes from democratic to republican, they can manipulate data to make votes invalid such as causing peoples voter registration to disappear and indirectly influencing people's decisions which would create even more obstacles for people casting their vote. 

If cyber attacks and hacking continues in the 2020 election, we should expect to see greater political unrest and potentially, mass protesting. Although we currently don’t have substantial amounts of information on what Russia and Iran’s future plans are and how they will affect our democracy and everyday lives, we can expect to see more information unfold as we approach November 3rd and the days beyond.  

 

By: Brandon Engerman, MC Dubard, and Ayla Wellnitz

The year is 1787. The founding fathers are arguing over how the leader of the country should be chosen. Some want the president to be chosen directly by the senate. Others think the people should be the ones to decide. Most of the founding fathers were afraid to give too much power directly to the people so they decided on a compromise called the electoral college.

The electoral college gives too much power to underpopulated states. Many rural, southern, and mid-western states have a disproportionate number of electoral votes compared to their small populations. Wyoming gets one electoral vote per 142 thousand people. California, Florida, and New York get one electoral vote per 500 thousand people. A Vote in Wyoming is over three and a half times more important than a vote in California. If we are striving for equality, is it fair to have one vote count more than others?

In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton received 65,845,063 votes and Donald Trump won 62,980,160 votes. By the popular vote, Clinton won with a margin of 2,864,903. However, despite a gap of nearly 3 million votes, Trump was elected to office. Clinton lost the election because of the Electoral College system. 

The Electoral College was created with the idea that the average American does not have enough information to make an informed vote, and the election process should be handled by these smart men who know all about the candidate’s policies. This objective made sense when there was no internet or television. But with modern resources the original reasoning behind the electoral college system is no longer applicable today. 

When you cast your ballot, you are not voting for a candidate; you are voting for a slate of preselected candidates appointed by the state’s political parties. Each state has a certain number of electors based on population. California has a population of almost 40 million people and 55 electoral voters, while Wyoming, with a population of 578,759, has three electoral voters. These electors ‘pledge’ to vote for a specific candidate; however, they don’t always do so. In seven presidential elections between 1948-1988, one elector voted for somebody other than the winner of the state’s popular vote. (Important Note: two states, Maine and Nebraska, both use a district system, so each elector votes based on the winner of the popular vote in their designated area.) In 2000 an elector cast a blank ballot. In 2016 seven electors voted against the states popular vote on the presidential ballot, and six did on the vice presidential ballot. These votes were cast by five Democrats and two Republicans and went to a spread of individuals not listed on the ballot, including Bernie Sanders, Colin Powell, and Ron Paul. 

The 12th amendment, passed in 1804, changed the law so that there were separate electoral ballots for president and VP, although the general public votes on them on a joint ballot. Another weird rule is that electors cannot vote for a President and Vice President both from their home state. The 12th amendment states “The electors shall meet in their inhabitant of the same state with themselves.” In most elections the Presidential candidates and their respective VP’s were from different states. However for the 2000 election, George W. Bush and his vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney were both from Texas. To work around the 12th amendment Dick Cheney sold his house in Dallas and got a Wyoming drivers licence. They won the electoral college with only 5 elector votes over the necessary amount to win, but lost the popular vote. 

The Bush/Cheney win was just one of five where the popular vote was won by one candidate, but the final election was won by the other. The electoral college creates a system where individual votes do not matter, and the person with the most power in the country could have been voted on by a minority of the people. 

The electoral college is a flawed, messy system that has been a staple part of American politics for over 200 years. The original reasons for it’s creation no longer hold and 58% of Americans disagree with the electoral college system. Why do we still have it around?  It’s a system that has been problematic since the beginning and isn’t meshing well with modern politics. 

After 200 years, it’s time for it to go. Maybe we shouldn’t even have had it in the first place. It wasn’t designed for a two party system, and it wasn’t designed to give the people a full voice. 

It’s time to say goodbye. 




Works Cited

"A Majority Of Americans Continue To Favor Replacing The Electoral College With A Nationwide Popular Vote". Pew Research Center, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/13/a-majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-replacing-electoral-college-with-a-nationwide-popular-vote/. Accessed 30 Oct 2020.

Bolotnikova, Marina N. “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?” Harvard Magazine, 10 July 2020, harvardmagazine.com/2020/07/why-do-we-still-have-the-electoral-college. 

Capodice, Nick. “Ask Civics 101: Why Do We Have The Electoral College?” New Hampshire Public Radio, www.nhpr.org/post/ask-civics-101-why-do-we-have-electoral-college. 

College, 5. "5 Reasons To Keep The Electoral College - Electoral Vote Map". Electoral Vote Map, 2019, https://electoralvotemap.com/5-reawsons-to-keep-the-electoral-college/. Accessed 30 Oct 2020.

Does the electoral college work?, US. "US Election: What Is The Electoral College And How Does It Work?". Euronews, 2020, https://www.euronews.com/2020/10/27/us-election-what-is-the-electoral-college-and-how-does-it-work. Accessed 30 Oct 2020.

"The Electoral College Explained". Nytimes.Com, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/article/electoral-college-explained.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2020.

"The Troubling Reason The Electoral College Exists". Time, 2020, https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/. Accessed 30 Oct 2020.

Roos, Dave. “Why Was the Electoral College Created?” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 15 July 2019, www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention 

"2020 Presidential Election Interactive Map.” 270toWin.Com, www.270towin.com/ .

NateSilver538. “2020 Election Forecast.” FiveThirtyEight, 29 Oct. 2020, projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/.  

However, over time this electoral college has proven to be a problematic system.  Some Americans believe that because of the electoral college, their votes are not properly represented. For example, they argue the “winner takes all” policy is one product of the electoral college that is failing democracy.  This article will critique winner takes all and will offer ideas of how to reform it.

So, what is the main problem with the winner takes all policy?  Winner takes all simply means that a state's electors all vote for the same candidate.  Their vote is still based on the state's popular vote, however, in some instances, winner takes all may not accurately represent their state.  Imagine if in a state that uses the winner takes all policy has 51% of the voter's vote democrat while the other 49% vote republican.  The electors would end up ignoring 49% of voters because they would spend all of their electoral votes on the candidate that a majority of voters wanted.  Winner takes all is a problem because it can underrepresent voters.

Winner takes all should be considered unconstitutional.  Even though America’s founding fathers intended for an “indirect democracy”, they by no means intended the winner takes all policy to exist.  There's no legal or constitutional justification for states’ to use the winner takes all policy, and because it causes the elector's vote to underrepresent some voters, it technically violates a person's right to vote.  The elector's vote should represent every single vote in their state, not just the majority of votes.  The image below compares what our current voting system looks like to what voting would look like if it was constitutional: 

  If Americans agree with this argument, they should continue to fight against the winner takes all policy.  Protesting, voting, or contacting their senator, house representative, or even president, and advocating for fair representation is the only way that change could be made. 

"Fair Representation Act." FairVote. https://www.fairvote.org/
     fair_representation?gclid=CjwKCAiA-f78BRBbEiwATKRRBA3pJX9AdFsFV3hD9PqkZBRihSvAGcl
     B2e-bMVkC8vhb5fUwAPx24xoCtUAQAvD_BwE#what_is_fair_voting.

Harrow, Jason. "The winner-take-all presidential system is unconstitutional.
     We're taking it to court." USA Today, March 8, 2018. 
     https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/08/ 
     winner-take-all-presidential-system-unconstitutional-court-challenge-jason-harrow 
     -column/398742002/.