Analysis of the Electoral College
Many people argue that the Electoral College is an outdated system. After all, many things have changed in the last two centuries. For one, technology is much more advanced now than it was two hundred years ago. With the internet and television, we can now learn everything about a candidate regardless of where the come from in the nation. It is feasible to have direct election of a president because of these improved methods of communication and the evolution of technology in general.
There are many arguments against the Electoral College. The most common attack on the system is that it enables a president to lose the election when they have won the majority of the popular votes (Polsby and Wildavsky 171).
Voter turnout in the United States is always low compared to most other advanced nations of the world. Voter turnout varies from state to state, and one state may have less electoral votes but a higher number of people voting. This certainly gives the more populous states an advantage in the electoral process, because even if few people vote their votes carry a lot more weight (Best 207). People often site the Electoral College as a reason they do not vote, because if you vote for the losing candidate in your state your vote is, in effect, thrown out. All of the state’s electoral votes will go to the winner in the state. Well organized and politically active groups have much more power when very few people are actually turning out to vote (Best 208). It seems that the direct election of the president would increase voter turnout and participation because voters would have no doubt that their vote would be equal to every other and would always be counted (Longley and Braun 83).
One of the problems of the Electoral College system is that it allows one-party states, states that almost always go to one party or the other. A Democrat who casts a vote in a largely Republican state will feel that his vote is wasted, because there is no way that the state will go to
There are many arguments against the Electoral College. The most common attack on the system is that it enables a president to lose the election when they have won the majority of the popular votes (Polsby and Wildavsky 171).
Voter turnout in the United States is always low compared to most other advanced nations of the world. Voter turnout varies from state to state, and one state may have less electoral votes but a higher number of people voting. This certainly gives the more populous states an advantage in the electoral process, because even if few people vote their votes carry a lot more weight (Best 207). People often site the Electoral College as a reason they do not vote, because if you vote for the losing candidate in your state your vote is, in effect, thrown out. All of the state’s electoral votes will go to the winner in the state. Well organized and politically active groups have much more power when very few people are actually turning out to vote (Best 208). It seems that the direct election of the president would increase voter turnout and participation because voters would have no doubt that their vote would be equal to every other and would always be counted (Longley and Braun 83).
One of the problems of the Electoral College system is that it allows one-party states, states that almost always go to one party or the other. A Democrat who casts a vote in a largely Republican state will feel that his vote is wasted, because there is no way that the state will go to
Cited: “2000 Presidential Electoral and Popular Vote.” FEC Office of Election Administration. 28 Feb. 2005 www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htmBest, Judith. The Case Against Direct Election of the President. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975. Bickel, Alexander M. Reform and Continuity: The Electoral College, the Convention, and the Party System. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.Kimberling, William C. “The Electoral College.” FEC Office of Election Administration. 28 Feb. 2005 www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdfLongley, Lawrence D. and Alan G. Braun. The Politics of Electoral College Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972.MacBride, Roger Lea. The American Electoral College. Caldwell, ID: The Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1963.Polsby, Nelson W., and Aaron B. Wildavsky. Presidential Elections. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964.