Should Electoral College Be Abolished
Every four years, millions of people across the United States cast their vote to decide the next president, but most do not realize just how little their vote means. In fact, the president is not elected by the people, but instead by 538 members of the electoral college. The electoral college should be replaced by a popular vote system because it will allow all votes to be equal, cause candidates to focus on more than just swing states, and result in a rightful winner that creates a more united country. The electoral college is a complicated system with a multitude of loopholes and rules that few citizens understand. The Founding Fathers originally chose the electoral college for two reasons: fear that the citizens were not educated enough and a lack of sufficient technology. Not only were the citizens uneducated, but they were unable to properly evaluate candidates due to limited
…show more content…
campaign events and a lack of media to spread information.
This created an uneducated and ill-informed populace that the Founding Fathers did not trust to elect the president. Instead, they chose a solution that solved the problems of their time period and combined the will of the people with the more educated congressmen: the electoral college. In the electoral college, each state, and the District of Columbia, are given a certain amount of electors, or votes, based on their number of seats in Congress. Each state receives an automatic two votes for their senators, plus however many seats they hold in the House of Representatives. The number of electors a state receives is in direct correlation with its size since the number of seats in the House of Representatives is determined by population. There are a total of 538 electoral votes spread out among the states. The presidential election is basically fifty-one separate elections where each state decides what candidate receives
their electoral votes. All states, except Nebraska and Maine, are based off a winner-take-all mentality, meaning whether a candidate wins by one vote or a million votes, they receive all of that state’s electoral votes. A candidate must receive more than half, or 270, electoral votes in order to win the election. Although the electoral college was an excellent solution in the 18th century, it is long overdue to be replaced with a modern solution that meets the needs of current times (“Electoral College 101”).
A major issue with the electoral college is that it creates unequal voting power because of its disproportionate distribution of electoral votes. For example, Wyoming has a population of 582,658 people and California has a population 38,332,521, but because of the way the electoral college distributes votes, Wyoming has three electoral votes while California only receives fifty-five (“List of State”; “US States”). Although this may seem like a large difference, one electoral vote in Wyoming represents just 194,220 people while one electoral vote in California accounts for 696,955 people. In essence, a voter in Wyoming has over three-and-a-half times more power than a voter in California. Although the Supreme Court ruled that votes need to be of equal value, the electoral college strips citizens of this right. Another problem with the electoral college is its use of winner-take-all among state elections. The founder of the National Popular Vote plan, John Koza, claims, “36 of 50 states are basically spectators in the general election” (Qtd. in “Should After” ). Koza is making the argument that since the majority of states are either heavily republican or democratic, the winner-take-all mentality of the electoral college makes voters in those states insignificant. For instance, a republican’s vote in New York has little impact since New York is almost guaranteed to vote democratic; on the other hand, a single vote in the swing state of Ohio can be crucial in deciding whether Ohio leans Republican or Democratic (Sampson). Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager for the 2012 election, reiterates the idea of voters in different states having disproportionate value when he asserts, “[w]hat I care way more about is Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin . . . In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That's why the national polls aren't relevant to this campaign" (Qtd. in Richie and Levien). In essence, Messina believes that national polls and non-swing states can be completely ignored because they have a miniscule effect on the outcome. Messina’s thought process highlights a key problem with the electoral college: it creates unequal voting power based off where the voter is located. Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would help bring the country much closer to “one person, one vote” by eliminating the unequal power amongst voters (Richie and Levien).
The presidential election should be changed to a popular vote because it will motivate candidates to campaign in a wider variety of states and help improve voter turnout. Obama’s campaign is not alone in the belief that only a few states matter in the election; Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican candidate, made this clear when he spoke, “[y]ou'll see the ads here in Florida . . . all the money will get spent in 10 states. And this is one of them” (Qtd. in Richie and Levien). Romney proclaimed this during one of his many campaign events in Florida and is making it obvious that he only cares about voters in a handful of states. The problem with candidates only campaigning in a few states is that it deprives millions of people from information and it decreases voter turnout. In a state that receives meager campaigning, voters will not be exposed to the policies of each candidate and consequently, will not be able to make an educated decision. Romney’s speech hurts voter turnout because it will make voters in non-swing states feel negligible. If a candidate is stating that they only care about voters in a few states, then people outside of those states are going to have no motivation to vote. Romney also claims in his speech that all of the money will be spent in ten states; in fact, during the 2012 election, those ten states accounted for 99.6% of all advertising spending. In the battleground states of New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama and Romney spent an average of $30 on each voter compared to thirty four other states where they spent less than one cent per voter. This statistic shows just how skewed the campaigning is in swing states versus non-swing states. The thirty-four states that were largely ignored by the candidates accounted for over two thirds of the country's population, meaning more than two hundred million people were largely left out of the election (Richie, Levien). When seeing the miniscule amount of campaigning non-battleground states receive, it becomes easy to understand why their voter turnout is seven percent lower compared to battleground states (Page). Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would cause candidates to campaign across all states, allowing more people an opportunity to become educated and help improve voter turnout.
Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would result in a rightful winner and create a more unified country. The electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, something that has happened five times throughout history and in two of the last five elections (Markusoff). Electing a president that does not win the popular vote is inherently wrong and creates an assortment of problems. It creates a government that is seen as illegitimate and creates a divided population (Smith). A prime example of this can be seen after the 2016 election where Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, but was elected president (Wasserman). Riots and protests flared across the country largely because people believed Trump had not fairly won the election. Another reason the candidate that wins the popular vote should become president is because they are more likely to succeed. The idea behind a successful democracy is that the better candidate will receive the majority of the votes, so to have a system where a candidate who receives fewer votes can win is purely ludicrous (Smith). Gloria Marshall, a Constitutional Law Professor at John Jay College, provides an interesting point when she points out popular election “is what we expect from other countries,” and “we are being hypocrites in allowing the Electoral College” (Qtd. in Jost). The United States has promoted democratic elections worldwide, but has yet to supply the same in their own country. If the United States believes other countries must hold democratic elections because it is the right thing to do, then it is time they provide a democratic election to their citizens. Although citizens are split on what candidate is the best fit for president, seventy percent of Americans agree on one idea: the presidential election needs to be changed to a popular vote (“Should” Junior). A popular vote system would allow each vote in the country to be truly equal, force candidates to focus on voters across the entire country, and allow the correct candidate to win. It is clear to see why Political Science Professor George Edwards III spoke, “[t]he Electoral College is a gross violation of the cherished value of political equality” (Qtd. in “Top 19”)
campaign events and a lack of media to spread information.
This created an uneducated and ill-informed populace that the Founding Fathers did not trust to elect the president. Instead, they chose a solution that solved the problems of their time period and combined the will of the people with the more educated congressmen: the electoral college. In the electoral college, each state, and the District of Columbia, are given a certain amount of electors, or votes, based on their number of seats in Congress. Each state receives an automatic two votes for their senators, plus however many seats they hold in the House of Representatives. The number of electors a state receives is in direct correlation with its size since the number of seats in the House of Representatives is determined by population. There are a total of 538 electoral votes spread out among the states. The presidential election is basically fifty-one separate elections where each state decides what candidate receives
their electoral votes. All states, except Nebraska and Maine, are based off a winner-take-all mentality, meaning whether a candidate wins by one vote or a million votes, they receive all of that state’s electoral votes. A candidate must receive more than half, or 270, electoral votes in order to win the election. Although the electoral college was an excellent solution in the 18th century, it is long overdue to be replaced with a modern solution that meets the needs of current times (“Electoral College 101”).
A major issue with the electoral college is that it creates unequal voting power because of its disproportionate distribution of electoral votes. For example, Wyoming has a population of 582,658 people and California has a population 38,332,521, but because of the way the electoral college distributes votes, Wyoming has three electoral votes while California only receives fifty-five (“List of State”; “US States”). Although this may seem like a large difference, one electoral vote in Wyoming represents just 194,220 people while one electoral vote in California accounts for 696,955 people. In essence, a voter in Wyoming has over three-and-a-half times more power than a voter in California. Although the Supreme Court ruled that votes need to be of equal value, the electoral college strips citizens of this right. Another problem with the electoral college is its use of winner-take-all among state elections. The founder of the National Popular Vote plan, John Koza, claims, “36 of 50 states are basically spectators in the general election” (Qtd. in “Should After” ). Koza is making the argument that since the majority of states are either heavily republican or democratic, the winner-take-all mentality of the electoral college makes voters in those states insignificant. For instance, a republican’s vote in New York has little impact since New York is almost guaranteed to vote democratic; on the other hand, a single vote in the swing state of Ohio can be crucial in deciding whether Ohio leans Republican or Democratic (Sampson). Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager for the 2012 election, reiterates the idea of voters in different states having disproportionate value when he asserts, “[w]hat I care way more about is Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin . . . In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That's why the national polls aren't relevant to this campaign" (Qtd. in Richie and Levien). In essence, Messina believes that national polls and non-swing states can be completely ignored because they have a miniscule effect on the outcome. Messina’s thought process highlights a key problem with the electoral college: it creates unequal voting power based off where the voter is located. Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would help bring the country much closer to “one person, one vote” by eliminating the unequal power amongst voters (Richie and Levien).
The presidential election should be changed to a popular vote because it will motivate candidates to campaign in a wider variety of states and help improve voter turnout. Obama’s campaign is not alone in the belief that only a few states matter in the election; Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican candidate, made this clear when he spoke, “[y]ou'll see the ads here in Florida . . . all the money will get spent in 10 states. And this is one of them” (Qtd. in Richie and Levien). Romney proclaimed this during one of his many campaign events in Florida and is making it obvious that he only cares about voters in a handful of states. The problem with candidates only campaigning in a few states is that it deprives millions of people from information and it decreases voter turnout. In a state that receives meager campaigning, voters will not be exposed to the policies of each candidate and consequently, will not be able to make an educated decision. Romney’s speech hurts voter turnout because it will make voters in non-swing states feel negligible. If a candidate is stating that they only care about voters in a few states, then people outside of those states are going to have no motivation to vote. Romney also claims in his speech that all of the money will be spent in ten states; in fact, during the 2012 election, those ten states accounted for 99.6% of all advertising spending. In the battleground states of New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama and Romney spent an average of $30 on each voter compared to thirty four other states where they spent less than one cent per voter. This statistic shows just how skewed the campaigning is in swing states versus non-swing states. The thirty-four states that were largely ignored by the candidates accounted for over two thirds of the country's population, meaning more than two hundred million people were largely left out of the election (Richie, Levien). When seeing the miniscule amount of campaigning non-battleground states receive, it becomes easy to understand why their voter turnout is seven percent lower compared to battleground states (Page). Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would cause candidates to campaign across all states, allowing more people an opportunity to become educated and help improve voter turnout.
Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would result in a rightful winner and create a more unified country. The electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, something that has happened five times throughout history and in two of the last five elections (Markusoff). Electing a president that does not win the popular vote is inherently wrong and creates an assortment of problems. It creates a government that is seen as illegitimate and creates a divided population (Smith). A prime example of this can be seen after the 2016 election where Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, but was elected president (Wasserman). Riots and protests flared across the country largely because people believed Trump had not fairly won the election. Another reason the candidate that wins the popular vote should become president is because they are more likely to succeed. The idea behind a successful democracy is that the better candidate will receive the majority of the votes, so to have a system where a candidate who receives fewer votes can win is purely ludicrous (Smith). Gloria Marshall, a Constitutional Law Professor at John Jay College, provides an interesting point when she points out popular election “is what we expect from other countries,” and “we are being hypocrites in allowing the Electoral College” (Qtd. in Jost). The United States has promoted democratic elections worldwide, but has yet to supply the same in their own country. If the United States believes other countries must hold democratic elections because it is the right thing to do, then it is time they provide a democratic election to their citizens. Although citizens are split on what candidate is the best fit for president, seventy percent of Americans agree on one idea: the presidential election needs to be changed to a popular vote (“Should” Junior). A popular vote system would allow each vote in the country to be truly equal, force candidates to focus on voters across the entire country, and allow the correct candidate to win. It is clear to see why Political Science Professor George Edwards III spoke, “[t]he Electoral College is a gross violation of the cherished value of political equality” (Qtd. in “Top 19”)