sent system makes recounts easier. Recounts are done by state instead of being done nation-wide. When it comes time for a recount of votes, only those states with a close election are recounted, instead of the entire nation. Secondly, the Electors from the Electoral College, not the popular vote, make the final decision on who receives the electoral votes. This can be good in order to prevent the election of a demagogue, a leader who makes use of popular prejudices, false claims and promises in order to gain power (Hamilton 263). “The Electoral College is also better, because while we tend to have close popular elections, in the Electoral College we tend to have decisive victories” (Parkinson). This way makes it is easier to see which person is the winner of the election. If the college were set up differently, the political leaders and the public alike would become easily confused in a close race. Originally, the system was established to ensure that all states were equally represented (Dumbauld 264). The system follows that today. The new system that is proposed would not hurt current conditions; it would only help matters. Parkinson stated previously that recounts are easier done by state as opposed to nation-wide. By that logic, recounts would be even easier if done by congressional district. Hamilton also stated the fear of a demagogue being elected. Parkinson, however, believes that the election of a demagogue is almost impossible with today’s media frenzy surrounding elections. Parkinson also believes that the current system helps to gain more decisive victories and defeats. What difference does that really make? While the new system would decrease the margin of victory, it would also represent the people more accurately. That is more important than a decisive victory. As for ensuring that all of the states are represented equally, the new system would do the same. Each state would have the s...
