The Electoral College was created as a compromise during the Constitutional Convention. The large states, such as Virginia, supported the popular vote while the smaller states, like Rhode Island, supported the Electoral College system. This system of voting assigns a certain number of electors to each state. The amount of electors is the number of representatives for each state plus the two senate members, making the minimum of three electors per state. Originally, electors for each state could choose who they wanted as president. As Mr. Stewart said, the electoral college served as a failure prevention system. The electors could choose their candidate of choice in case they thought that the people chose the wrong candidate. Now, the electors' votes go to the candidate who wins the state. There are 538 electors and to win, a presidential candidate must receive 270, a majority.
There have been five times in United States history where a candidate who won the popular vote lost the election. In the last twenty years, both Al Gore and Clinton won the popular vote, but did not win the election (Bush and Trump did, respectively). We are coming up on the fifty-ninth presidential election, which means that the popular vote winner lost in eight percent of elections. Although eight percent may not seem like very much, it is enough for some to question the effectiveness of the system.
Some believe that the electoral college must remain as the system of voting in order to protect the smaller states. These states, such as Wyoming, say they would be completely ignored because a larger state, like California, would completely overpower them (due to its population). California has sixty-eight times more people than Wyoming, but only eighteen times as many electors. This allows smaller states’ votes to count and not merely be a “flyover” state for politicians. The representative of Idaho’s first congressional district, Raúl Labrador, argues that the electoral college “has kept our nation strong and united.” (iowastatesman.com) He states that if we only used the popular vote, California would have “single-handedly swung the [2016] election” in favor of Clinton. With the Electoral College, politicians must listen to these smaller states because every electoral vote counts.
Others argue that the geographical size and numbers of states that choose a candidate do not matter. They put an emphasis on the popular vote, instead, and would like to abolish the system. The Electoral College is not proportional by population, as shown by the ratio of California’s and Wyoming’s population and electors. With the popular vote, every individual vote is weighted the same. Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren wants to end the electoral college in order to make "every vote matter." (The Washington Post). With the end of this system, swing states would no longer be vital in winning an election; an equally divided state would be equally divided in the popular vote. States would no longer be voting as a block in support of a single party; every individual vote counts.
Should the electoral college continue to exist or be abolished? Originally created as a compromise to protect small states, this system has endured since the start of an independent United States. On one hand, keeping the electoral college makes the small states' votes count and keeps them from being ignored in political campaigns. On the other, the popular vote allows for each individual's vote to be weighted the same. Although the electoral college has not been abolished yet, with today’s debate, who knows what will happen in the future?
Sources:
Should the electoral college continue to exist or be abolished? Originally created as a compromise to protect small states, this system has endured since the start of an independent United States. On one hand, keeping the electoral college makes the small states' votes count and keeps them from being ignored in political campaigns. On the other, the popular vote allows for each individual's vote to be weighted the same. Although the electoral college has not been abolished yet, with today’s debate, who knows what will happen in the future?
Sources:
https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article118897158.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/19/elizabeth-warren-wants-kill-electoral-college/
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/19/elizabeth-warren-wants-kill-electoral-college/
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem/
I enjoy how you brought up the electoral college as it is a very hot debate topic, additionally you included a lot of resources to show both sides of debate. I am in favor of the electoral college being abolished, not only due to your reason of the electoral college not being proportional with regards but also due to others. For example, the reasons for which the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College aren't relevant anymore. In 1788, Hamilton needed there to be the electors, so the elections were "free from any sinister bias". As even if there was a shady candidate that won over the public, members of the Electoral College could use their own judgement. However; members are now expected to vote along their party lines regardless of their own opinions about the candidates. In the past, there have been many voting laws that have limited direct democracy in the Constitution, that have been amended such as women's' voting rights.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, I believe that the electoral college should be abolished. I agree with Elizabeth Warren's sentiment that the electoral college diminishes the value of every individual's vote, which seems undemocratic. I also think that it gives a disproportionate amount of influence to less populated areas of the US, which contributes to the outcomes of elections not reflecting the will of the voters. However, that being said, another important part of the discussion is the feasibility of jumping through the numerous bureaucratic hurdles into order to actually abolish the Electoral College. Amending the Constitution is just one step in a complicated process, and I think it would be interesting to look into what else it would take.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post is super relevant and I think it is a very important topic to bring up especially right now as the elections are around the corner. Something we should think about which the electoral college forces candidates to do, which is important, is campaigning in all states. The electoral college forces candidates to address citizens in each state in order to win them. However, I do agree in the sense that the electoral college doesn't always choose the candidate that best represents the population. As seen with Trump, a majority of Americans have been upset since his inauguration and even his own base is fracturing due to his trade policies. Maybe there's a way we can create a system that incentivizes candidates to campaign in each state while preserving democracy and the power of popular vote?
ReplyDelete