Abolishing the Electoral College Pros and Cons

¶ … ELECTORAL COLLEGE BE ABOLISHED?

The Electoral College system for electing the President was widely examined and often criticized following the November, 2000 election. Two times in recent history we faced the possibility that a Presidential candidate would get most of the popular vote and yet lose in the Electoral College. The Electoral College interferes with the individual voter's opportunity to express a preference for one candidate over another because only the Electoral College votes really count.

We often say we have a democratic government, but in reality, we have a largely federalist government. While we use direct votes to elect members of congress, we use the Electoral College to choose our highest elected official -- the President. Each state has a certain number of members in the Electoral College, and with rare exceptions, all Electoral College votes for one state go to the candidate who received the majority of votes for that state. The number of electoral votes equals the number of Representatives and Senators. Thus, the distribution of electoral votes has shifted over time as the population of the country has shifted. Each time congressional seats are redistributed, it is possible that some states will gain or lose electoral votes.

The issue of states' vs. federal power has been an important issue since the United States was first founded. At that time, the smaller and agricultural states wanted to join the union, but did not want to be always dominated by the more populous states. Dividing power so that some was based on population and some distributed equally to each state was the final compromise (Glassmann, 200; National Review, 2001). The compromise was necessary at the time. Colonists had previously had two allegiances: one to Great Britain and one to their colony. While they could see the need to unite to gain strength, as none of them could stand against the British alone, they wanted to retain some independence for each colony.

DISCUSSION

Historically, states' rights have been an important issue. Until the compromise that led to the Electoral College, our founders had a hard time pulling the colonies together to form a new country. It was an important issue leading to the Civil War. However, the idea seems dated today. While people say what state they're from with pride, for the average voter, most citizens' patriotism is focused on their country, not the state they live in.

The criticism made most often about the Electoral College is that it does not always reflect "the will of the people" (Samples, 2001). This has particularly been a concern with the elections of 1960 and 2000 (Glassmann, 2001). In both cases, the Presidents were elected by a very narrow popular margin. When that happens, people tend to worry that a presidential candidate might some day get most of the popular vote and yet lose in the Electoral College. However, this has never happened.

Glassmann (2001) that the Electoral College makes voters in the smaller states important. He comments that both Bush and Gore spent a significant amount of time campaigning in both West Virginia and Delaware. Their Electoral College votes held more significance than the popular votes would have, because a win in those states got the candidate all the votes, not just in proportion to the number who voted for that candidate.

The negative aspect of this, as Glassmann points out, is that larger states were given less attention than their size would predict. In the 2000 election, Bush paid little attention to New York, believing that he could not carry the states, and his minority of votes would be completely lost when all the state's Electoral College votes went to gore. For the same reason, Gore paid little attention to Texas (Glassmann, 2001). This seems to fly in the face of democracy. If every vote cast counted for every candidate, the candidates would have a need to reach out to all voters, not treat them as prepackaged groups.

In addition, the Electoral College keeps control to the two major political parties. This makes it much harder for any third party candidate to be elected. It also lessens the chances that the election of the President will be finalized in the House of Representatives. This happened in 1824, and the resulting deal-making among congressmen cast a pall of corruption over the process (Glassmann, 2001). However, that would also be the democratic process at work, and would reflect the will of the voters.

Some critics remain concerned about the effects of the Electoral College on larger states (see examples of New York and Texas above). Maine and Nebraska have adopted a unique way of working within the Electoral College system (Glassmann, 2001; Samples, 2001). Two electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the majority in the state. This corresponds to each state's two senators. However, the other Electoral College votes come from the number of Representatives. In Maine and Nebraska, those Electoral College votes are awarded corresponding to each congressional district. So if a state had 10 Electoral College votes and the majority of the voters voted for the Republican candidate, that candidate would get 2 Electoral College votes (for the two senators). If five congressional districts had majority votes for the Republican Candidate and three for the Democratic, a total of seven votes would go to the Republican candidate, but three would go for the democratic.