Why The Electoral College Should Be Abolished And Essay Example

our president.

But before I outline all the problems with the Electoral College and why it needs to be replaced by the direct vote election system, it is necessary to have a brief understanding of where it came from and why it was set up this way. The Electoral College was created by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia and is a product of 18th century political philosophy and compromise. When the founders established the Constitution they chose to subject elections to rules that inhibited the formation of permanent electoral majorities (Squire, p. 37).

This relates back to James Madison’s argument of dispersing power in order to avoid tyranny (Stone, p. 22). For the founders resorted to this indirect election system because they feared those government officials that were too responsive to the wishes of the majority. They believed that if government officials were somewhat insulated from the passions of the public, they would find it easier to protect the rights of the minority and to promote the common good (Squire, p. 38). And so in order to prevent the majority from continuously being able to dominate the minority, they set up indirect elections, specifically, the Electoral College.

This Electoral College, set forth by the rules of the Constitution, allowed states to cast electoral votes equal to the number of its senators and representatives. The number of senators is two for every state and the number of representatives depends roughly upon each state’s population. For example, in the 2004 election, California, which has two senators and 53 representatives, cast 55 electoral votes, whereas Wyoming, which has two senators

and only one representative, cast only three electoral votes.

It is important however to note though that citizens do not technically vote for presidential candidates but rather for electors (Best, p. xi). These electors are collectively known as the Electoral College and are nominated by the party and are pledged to support the candidates of that party (Kura, p. 1). On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, they travel to their state capitols and cast their ballots for their party’s candidates.

These ballots are then sent to Congress where they are formally counted by the House and the Senate and the next president is announced (Best, p. i). In order to win in the Electoral College, the Constitution requires that a candidate receive a majority of the electoral votes, currently 270 votes out of a possible 538. Sometimes however, there is a strong third party which garners a considerable amount of electoral votes, and so if there is no majority, meaning the top candidate does not have 270 electoral votes, then the newly elected House of Representatives elects the president from the top three finishers, with each state delegation casting one vote (Squire, p. 429).

In addition, the newly elected Senate then elects the vice-president from the top two finishers, with each senator casting one vote. Now after having an understanding of how the Electoral College works, it is important to also understand the thinking and deceit behind the foundation of the Electoral College. The founders rejected electing the president through Congress because they feared that when he ran for re-election he would be too dependent upon the national

legislature, meaning that he wouldn’t focus on the people as much (Best, p. ix).

In addition, they rejected the direct election by the people because they thought it “unlikely or impractical for the average citizen to know enough about candidates from other states,” and also most of the delegates questioned the ability of the people to cast responsible votes (Best, p. ix). And so the founders opted for the indirect election, the Electoral College. But more importantly, they chose this system of electing the president and vice-president not because it was the best alternative but because it was a compromise by the founders that gave all the founders what they wanted.

The large states got electoral votes based upon their population, and the small states got an assurance of at least three electoral votes and a contingency procedure based on a one-state-one-vote principle if the election had to go to the House of Representatives. In addition, those who feared “tyranny of the majority,” got an indirect method of electing presidents, and more noticeably, those in the slave states got a counting method that factored in added voting strength to reflect their slave population (Best, p. x).

For slaves could not vote but counted as three-fifths towards a state’s representation in Congress and thus in the Electoral College as well, meaning that the South purposely did not want to adopt a popular vote or direct election because then its slaves would not count at all for they could not vote. And so since they did not want to lose any influence in determining the presidency, they supported adopting the system of the Electoral

College. This way, slaves would at least be counted as three-fifths of the population and so the Southern states could get a higher electoral vote than without the slaves (Keyssar).

Hence, the Electoral College is founded upon very racist and discriminatory traditions. The last explanation of how the Electoral College works has to do with its allocation of electoral votes. Most states, except Maine and Nebraska, have a winner-take-all system where a presidential candidate just has to achieve a majority of the votes in the state in order to receive all the electoral votes of that state. This system causes major controversy for it does not differentiate between candidates who are very close in the election of a state as opposed to those who are losing miserably within a state.

However, ironically, this winner-take-all formula which is often referred to as the unit-rule, is not even part of the Constitution; it is merely a state practice that was first adopted in the 19th century and then gradually accepted by the rest of the states (Best, p. xii). The Constitution in fact, does not define how the electoral votes are to be allocated and allows this decision to be decided by the states. For example, Maine and Nebraska have modified their winner-take-all allocation to that of the congressional district allocation.

And Colorado attempted in the 2004 election to modify their winner-take-all electoral vote allocation to a proportional allocation but failed. And so after learning about the Electoral College and how it is set up, it should be apparent that many unfair and undemocratic processes are at hand. For a democracy is usually characterized

by the people electing a leader but the Electoral College way of electing a leader is completely undemocratic, for it does not allow the people’s vote to actually decide the outcome of the election, signifying that it also does not follow the Instrumental Voting Model.

And for this it should result in the complete elimination of the Electoral College system and be replaced with that of the direct vote alternative. To further highlight the inconsistencies of this unfair process it is important to understand the voter inequality between voters of large states and voters of small states. For example, in the 2004 election, California had 55 electoral votes compared to Wyoming’s three and though it appears as though this is fair because it is supposedly proportional to the population, it is not.

Small states have a considerable advantage because each state is entitled to two senators and therefore two electoral votes regardless of how small the population of the state is (Kura, 14). In addition, regardless of how small their population is, the state receives at least one more electoral vote for having the minimum of one member in the House of Representatives. This gives every small state at least three electoral votes, which is not only unfair and disproportional when compared to other small states that have a higher population but the same three electoral votes, but it is also considerably unfair in comparison to large states.

For example, in the 2004 election, Wyoming, the least populous state, had three electoral votes or approximately one for every 164,594 inhabitants. Whereas in contrast, California, the most populous state with 55 electoral votes,

had only one electoral vote for approximately every 615,848 inhabitants (Pearson). Anyone, even a proponent of the Electoral College, would have to agree that this is completely unfair. One Wyoming electoral vote has almost four times the weight of one California electoral vote. This is completely absurd and undemocratic.

It creates complete voter inequality and gives people living in the small states a tremendous advantage over those living in large states. And it is all due to the Electoral College. It is difficult to argue then that this system is fair, for are people living in Wyoming more important than people living in California? Are people in Wyoming four times better citizens and so deserve to influence the presidential election four times more than California residents? I would hope not and therefore argue that a direct election would be considerably fairer.

If the direct vote alternative were in place then everyone’s vote would count the same regardless of where they lived. For instance, you could live in Hawaii or Rhode Island and would not have to worry about whether your vote changed as you moved geographically across the country. For it should not be that someone whose job is moved from California to Wyoming suddenly loses four times his influence on electing his president and vice-president. This practice is completely undemocratic.

Moreover, it is important to additionally point out that such voter inequality occurs a lot and in many states, not just Wyoming, for in the 2004 election there were eight states with three electoral votes (Pearson). Hence, voter inequality and the small states’ advantages are rampant throughout the electoral voting system

and in desperate need of abolishing. The irony with the Electoral College though is that even though it definitely does help the smaller states as described, it also helps the larger states on a completely different level.

For during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 it was agreed that the large states would get electoral votes based upon their population and though this appears to be a fair process, in the end, however, it results in voter inequality. This occurs because presidential candidates during the entire campaign and especially during the closing weeks of the campaign focus only on crucial “swing” states where the popular vote of that state is fairly even (Best, p. xii). But this creates huge unfairness for if there are multiple “swing” states, then the candidates focus on the larger states over the smaller states.

They do this because the unit-rule allows the candidates to take all the electoral votes from that state, and so candidates naturally focus on the larger states because they have the most impact upon the election. For example, during the 2004 election, President George W. Bush spent a lot more time campaigning in Florida than in Minnesota because even though both were “swing” states, Florida had 27 electoral votes and Minnesota had only 10 (Pearson). But once more this is completely undemocratic for again someone’s vote should not have a bigger impact depending upon their geographic location.

For if every vote supposedly counts then shouldn’t it count just as much in a small “swing” state as opposed to in a large “swing” state (or any state for that matter)? The bottom line is that

the Electoral College is completely unjust for the winner-take-all arrangement in the states magnifies the relative power of residents in large states and devalues those of the smaller and middle-sized states. It allows for a disproportional influence upon the election, depending upon in which state you live in, which is not only undemocratic but completely unjust.

As illustrated, the Electoral College is clearly filled with errors and contradictions such as the inequality of voting influences by both voters of small and large states. In addition to all these flaws, possibly one of the biggest criticisms of the Electoral College has to do with something known as the “minority” president. This term refers to when a candidate wins the presidency by gaining more electoral votes but actually loses in the overall popular vote.

Generally, such an incident occurs because not only do small states have more power in the Electoral College than their populations justify, but because the winner of the presidency wins his states by a narrower margin than the margins by which the losing opponent wins his states (Squire, p. 430). In fact, in American history there have been four presidents that have won the Electoral College but lost in the popular vote. In 1824, John Quincy Adams received only 30. 92 percent of the popular vote but yet defeated Andrew Jackson who had in fact garnered 41. 34 percent of the total vote.

In 1876, Rutherford Hayes with 47. 95 percent of the popular vote beat Samuel Tilden who had 50. 97 percent of the vote. Moreover, in 1888, Benjamin Harrison won the presidency with 47. 82 percent of the

popular vote whereas Grover Cleveland had slightly more with 48. 62 percent of the vote (Best, p. xii). And lastly, the fourth and most recent time where a president was elected by losing the popular vote was during the debacle of the 2000 election, where George W. Bush with 47. 87 percent of the popular vote defeated Al Gore who had garnered over 500,000 more votes with 48. 8 percent of the popular vote but still lost the election (Edwards, p. 45). Now looking at all these numbers makes one wonder how this is fair and how it is democratic? And the answer is of course that it is not. Electoral scholar Albert Pearson III notes that not only is “the presidency the only effective office in this country where the popular vote does not determine the winner,” but that “the winner of a presidential election is determined by a system that would be unconstitutional in any other political context” (Pearson).

How is this possible? How can the most important election in the United States be not only “unconstitutional” but the only election where one can win with less total votes than the opponent? This leads one only to conclude that since the Electoral College is rigged with such disparity, it should hastily be replaced with the direct election system, where the concept of “minority” presidents would be eradicated and replaced with a president-elect that is based upon the just principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people.

Now in addition to the disturbing hypocrisy of how a candidate can win the presidency without the majority of the peoples’ votes, there is

also the inequitable aspect of contingent elections. For “if the presidential and vice presidential candidates fail to receive a simple majority of Electoral College votes, the Twelfth Amendment provides that the House of Representatives chooses the president and the Senate chooses the vice president,” in a process known as contingent elections (Edwards, p. 55).

Currently, a contingent election would occur if during a presidential campaign neither of the candidates were able to gain 270 electoral votes, which would usually only occur if there were a strong third party involved. In fact, in American history there have been two contingent elections, one in 1800 and another in 1824 (Best, p. xi). According to the Twelfth Amendment which was ratified in 1804, the House of Representatives gives one vote to each state to elect the president and a majority of 26 or more votes is required; in the Senate, each member casts one vote and a majority of 51 r more votes is required to elect the vice-president (Edwards, p. 55).

And though this at first appears to be a fair process, it represents in fact one of the most offensive violations of democratic principles in the American political system (Edwards, p. 55). First, it exemplifies true undemocratic behavior in the way that it further removes the election from the people because their vote now literally means nothing for the election is completely in the hands of the senators and representatives and no longer in the hands of the people.

Secondly, the best electoral example of how unfair and how far removed this practice is from the will of the people can be seen

when looking at the 1824 election. For in this election John Quincy Adams received only 30. 92 percent of the popular vote but yet defeated his opponent, Andrew Jackson, who had received 41. 34 percent (Best, p. xii). One wonders how this can happen – how can one candidate receive 10 percent more of the popular vote and yet still lose? The answer is quite simple, contingent elections.

For in 1824, neither Jackson nor Adams received a majority of the electoral votes and so it went to the House of Representatives. And there, instead of choosing the candidate that had 10 percent more of the popular vote than his opponent, they chose John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States of America. Lastly, another way that the contingent election process distorts the popular will is that in the House of Representatives each state casts only one vote and so all the delegates of each state get together and have to vote collectively with only one vote for all of them.

This relates back to the notion of the small states’ advantages. Because the seven states that have only one congressional representative, these seven House members representing a total of almost 5 million citizens in casting their state’s one vote for president, would be able to outvote 177 members of the House from the six largest states with a total population of almost 119 million citizens – a number 24 times greater (Edwards, p. 73).

To further emphasize this discrepancy, it might be easier to understand it in terms of comparing states. For instance, the vote of the single representative from

Wyoming, representing only half a million people, would count the same as the votes of all 55 representatives from California which represent over 35 million people! (Edwards, p. 75) Hence, without further deliberation there is a great political inequality within the contingent election system and definitely within the overall Electoral College.