Stewart is an elector representing the state of Vermont in the Electoral College for the election of the president. The popular vote has been tallied and it is time to finally elect the president. The results for Vermont's popular vote tells Stew that he is supposed to vote for Blaine Darvy, but he isn't restricted to that decision by any constitutional or state laws. Technically, he is bound to this decision by his honor of representing the people and by an out of practice rule that never really made it into law form. This pseudo-law is virtually never enforced and electors are free to vote for whomever they support by their personal beliefs. Unfortunately, Stewart made the decision to abstain from the vote altogether, and because of this, Blaine Darvy is one vote short of becoming president and his opponent is declared the victor. Because of our political system's set up, this is a very possible event that has happened in past elections. Political systems all over the world are often shrouded in controversy and mystery that very few people understand, and the American election process is not an exception to the rule: particularly, the Electoral College.
[...] Following these examples, it is clear that the Electoral College system and our entire selection process for the election of the president is inherently flawed and should be changed to better reflect the interests of the people. The fact that our current election process has nothing to do with plurality—winner by majority—is also a major problem with the system. Under the Electoral College votes are required to be declared the winner This in itself is not so bad, but then, because of the way the state populations work and how the Electoral College is set up, it is discovered that those 270 necessary votes can be achieved by winning a mere 11 states (Longley). [...]
[...] The best course of action for the abolishment of the Electoral College is the national popular vote with a majority rule in instant runoff because it allows the voters to express their opinions best because of the way the system is designed to take into account a person's second and third choice candidate in the election; however, there is no ultimate course of action that will solve all of the nation's problems when it comes to Election Day. The best thing for the lawmakers in Congress to do would be to enact some sort of change in the electoral process for the better, because as of right now, there is little hope of proper representation for the people of the United States. [...]
[...] Maybe the Electoral College system is not the right one for the United States; however, it appears that the countries that speak out against our Electoral College system also tend to disapprove of the way we live and the way our economy is set up through capitalism. The term Electoral College, coined at a later date and never actually mentioned in the Constitution, is actually a misnomer because it was never meant to actually elect the president (Schumaker 39). The founding fathers expected that the members of the Electoral College would nominate several candidates for the presidency based on intelligent evidence, and then the elected House of Representatives would proceed to actually select the president from those options. [...]
[...] Moreover, where the Electoral College appeared to be preordained by the fact that it was really only a two party competition, a direct election would give anyone a fair chance of winning (Schumaker 25). This is the type of election used in state gubernatorial elections, and some argue that it works very well, and may even enhance the separation of powers theory because Congress' power would be much more removed from the selection of the president, which could create a purer democracy (Schumaker 17). [...]
[...] Essentially, this means that after the popular vote—the traditional time for a concession speech—when the losing candidate delivers his speech, everything he or she says is almost completely pointless because the electoral college meets a couple of weeks later to decide who the real president is, and the person who delivered the concession speech after the popular vote could very well be the winner of the election. Even though it is not an official rule that must be changed, the generally accepted period of time for a concession speech should be changed until after the Electoral College votes, unless of course the Electoral College is abolished and the direct popular vote is the election that decides the president. [...]
using our reader.