Benefit from Our Service: Save 25%
Along with the first order offer - 15% discount (with the code "get15off"), you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/pageSubject
25 November 2012
Doubts about the Accuracy of Elections Results
This paper is going to consider inductive and deductive reasoning and examine the nature of doubts about the accuracy of elections results.
Deductive Reasoning and Conclusion
1. All people have doubts about the accuracy of elections results; especially when they have evidence of inconsistency (Premise).
2. Americans are people (Premise).
3. Therefore, American people have doubts about the accuracy of elections results, especially when they have evidence of inconsistency (Conclusion).
Inductive Reasoning and Conclusion
1. 90% of candidates for the post of American president win the elections nationally by a majority of votes (Premise).
2. The election of 2000 was the election of American president (Premise).
3. Therefore, in 2000, the person who won a majority of votes nationally became the President of the United States (Conclusion).
Every time as the presidential election approaches, there are doubts about the correspondence of the Electoral Colleges results and outpouring of popular will in relation to the election of the president. More and more Americans hesitate about the accuracy of the Electoral College, especially after 2000. In 2000, the person who won nationally a majority of votes was denied the presidency because of the Electoral College. Such incidents periodically occur in the history of the United States. In 1876, the election situation was so controversial that the national cost’s commission was involved.
The evidence of deductive conclusion is the failure of the Electoral College to represent the interests of the national population accurately in some important respects. First of all, the number of electoral votes in the college is overrepresented by rural states. It is due to the authorized number of voters for each state. It consists of the number of House’s members plus two votes, which equals the number of Senate’s members for each state regardless of population. In 1988, for instance, the amalgamated population of voting age of the seven least populated areas of Wyoming, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Delaware that constitute 3,119,000 had the same voting influence in the Electoral College as the 9,614,000 votes in Florida. The Electoral College fails also accurately represent the interests of the national population due to the winner-take-all mechanism, which allows the presidential candidate with most votes to gain all the Electoral votes of that state. Thus, the winner-take-all formula that applied in all states of the U.S. except Maine and Nebraska and the Electoral College sometimes dramatically change the outcome of the popular vote. Therefore, Americans have grounds for their doubts, and they are people. Thus, there are two premises that are true and the conclusion which is also true (Jackson County 2012).
The inductive conclusion is that the election of 2000 won the person who had a majority of votes nationally. There are also two premises which are true, and the following paragraph is going to prove it. The Electoral College has fulfilled its mission for over 200 years, which includes over 50 presidential elections. It safeguards that the selected President obtains both nationwide popular support and approval of the trusted members of the government. Popular support gives him the right to govern, whereas the approval of the trusted members makes him the appropriate person to govern. Actually, the Electoral College is a compromise that the framers of the Constitution came to. The reason of this is that some of them considered that the president should be appointed by the Congress, and the majority of them considered that the public was not capable of electing the adequate person as the chief executive. Therefore, the Americans who give their votes to the president practically delegate their voting right to 538 authorized electors. Such delegation of votes generates discrepancies and inconsistencies that diminish and misrepresent the interests of the national population. Florida is the bright example of how the system could neglect by individual votes. In 2000, the electors of Florida and the law “winner-take-all helped George Bush to become the president of the United States. George Bush received 100 percent of Floridas electoral votes despite the fact that he defeated his opponent Al Gore only by 537 votes; it is about 49.9 % of votes for Al Gore versus 50.1 % of votes for G. Bush. Thus, George Bush became the president of the U.S. owing to victory in Florida and the Electoral College while Al Gore got 500,000 more individual popular votes nationwide. Therefore, in case of inductive reasoning, there can be inconsistency. Two true statements often do not guarantee the accurate conclusion (Love 2010).
Deductive premises, which are: 1) All people have doubts about the accuracy of elections results, especially when they have evidence of inconsistency, and 2) Americans are people. As a result, two deductive premises gave the accurate conclusion, which is: American people have doubts about the accuracy of elections results, especially when they have evidence of inconsistency. However, inductive premises, which are: 1) 90% of candidates for American president win the elections nationally by a majority of votes, and 2) The election of 2000 was the election of the American president. As a result, two inductive premises did not give the accurate conclusion, which is, In 2000, the person who won a majority of votes nationally became the President of the U.S.. As history shows, the person who won a majority of votes nationally was Al Gore, but the person who became a president was George Bush. Therefore, the deductive conclusion is always accurate, whereas the inductive conclusion allows the possibility that conclusion is not accurate.