Question

Do the events surrounding the Election of 2000 justify changes to the Electoral College? Explain why it does or why it does not in a well-written paragraph with at least three reasons.
please help I need the answer fast

Answer 1

No Gore did not win a mandate in 2000. He had only 48% of the popular vote which is not considered as a victory. He also lost many critical states which meant that he was not qualified to be president. Clinton failed to have a majority vote in 1992. However, he did win a plurality of the states and was suited to be president per the Electoral College.

Hope this helps you :P

Answer 2

Answer:

The events surrounding the Election of 2000 justify changes to the Electoral College because Bush had won more votes in larger states which shows how successful he was, Gore only got some votes from smaller states. The Electoral College not changing determines the president and other campaign runners to pay close attention to larger areas for votes. Receiving votes from larger states will diminish the votes from smaller states, therefore why the Electoral College can not change. Many people will disagree with these statements as they think, its unfair votes from larger states cancel out votes from smaller states, however it is correct and should not be disagreed upon. The Election of 2000 use a method called, "butterfly ballots" for voting, although this method was stressful, it worked very well.