Electoral College Should Be Abolished

As one of the most controversial elections in history, the 2016 presidential elections between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump marked another year where the popular vote did not coincide with the electoral vote. The fact that Trump won the election even after losing the popular vote by over one million votes, brought an already ongoing debate to the forefront: To keep the electoral college or not? Some critics believe that it creates an emphasis on largely populated states and others argue that low-populated states are given greater, unfair representation. Regardless, both arguments share a common thread: an inequitable representation. The electoral college should be abolished due to being undemocratic, over representing small states, and depriving third parties of a fair chance.
For a country that prides itself in being democratic, the electoral college being the system in which the United States elects its president is fairly ironic.
Part of a democratic nation involves the equality of rights. However, in utilizing the electoral college, it is possible for the candidate to win presidency with a minimum of eleven states (Doc A). Yes, it is highly improbable for a candidate to garner all the support from the states with the highest electoral vote but the fact that the possibility exists is highly undemocratic since it would ignore more than half of the states. In continuance in its unfair representation, the electoral college does not equivalate the votes of every person. For example, twelve states has approximately three hundred thousand less people in population than Illinois, yet those states receive a total of forty-four electoral votes in comparison to Illinois’ twenty votes (Doc D). It gives the people from the twelve states a higher representation than those in Illinois which is the opposite of the United States democratic
stance. Furthering its undemocratic nature, the electoral college over represents the small (in terms of population) states. Although it may seem that an advantage is given to the heavily populated states, it is in fact the opposite since small states are automatically given three electoral votes despite its population warranting less (Doc A). Prime examples would include the states Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming. The populations of each of previously mentioned states would only warrant one electoral vote yet they each have three, detracting votes from larger states. The electoral college denies a fair opportunity for the third parties, depriving them from votes even though they gather a respectable amount in the popular votes. In the 1992 elections Ross Perot from the Independent received 19% of the popular vote but received no electoral votes (Doc B). The electoral college eliminates third parties, preserving the two-party system, not allowing for new parties to grow. In preserving the same system, it does not allow the government to experience a change that could possibly have a positive outcome. Although the third parties are not as popular but they do deserve recognition from the country that promotes equal opportunities and rights. In conclusion, the electoral college should be abolished due to being undemocratic, over representing small states, and depriving third parties of a fair chance. Although the electoral college does have redeeming qualities such as its ability to put a united front. It allows the voting seem that there is a clear majority. However, it does not provide a strong enough argument to not abolish the system.