Abolition of Electoral College

Electoral College System

The Presidential Elections of 2000 have once again raised doubts regarding the effectiveness of the electoral college system. A straight accounting of the popular vote showed that Democratic candidate Al Gore had a lead of over 500,000 votes over his opponent, George W. Bush. The Supreme Court was thus forced to assume the role of electoral arbiter for Florida's vote count, which resulted in the latter's victory via Electoral College votes.

This paper argues that the scenario described above is just one of the reasons why the Electoral College should be abolished. The United States should instead adopt a popular vote system, where each citizen gets one vote.

The first part of this paper looks at the composition of the Electoral College, and studies what conditions led to this body's creation in the first place. The subsequent discussions then detail why the current political and social climate no longer necessitate the Electoral College system. First, this paper points out that concerns such as slavery and presidential independence are no longer relevant today. Second, the paper argues that many other pro-Electoral College arguments regarding state rights do not hold water. The paper then looks at the issue empirically, by investigating how the Electoral College disenfranchises the popular vote and could almost raise further complications that call for "contingent elections."

The founders of the country's Constitutional Convention have created the Electoral College system, but they most likely did not intend the problems that this cumbersome system raised. They also likely did not intend the system to be the antithesis of egalitarian institutions. This paper therefore maintains that the Electoral College should be replaced, and a more democratic system put in its place.

Origins and composition

The Electoral College system rests on the principle that states play a significant part in deciding national politics. The number of a state's electoral votes is equal to the number of its senators and representatives, with the District of Columbia being allocated three votes. This comes to a total of 538 electoral votes. To win a presidential election, a candidate thus has to carry at least half the number of electoral votes (Wilson and DiLulio 373).

The task of gaining the majority of electoral college votes is mitigated by the "all or nothing" system of counting electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska are the two exceptions, where the number of electoral votes can be split between the candidates on the basis of their popular vote totals. In all other states, however, the candidate who wins a simple majority of the popular votes is awarded all the state's electoral votes as well (Wilson and DiLulio 373).

It is this "winner take all" system of counting electoral votes that allows a candidate to win the presidency even without winning the popular vote. This is one of the greatest criticisms lobbed against this institution.

Theoretical concerns

The Electoral College was founded on the antithesis to democratic institutions. In essence, it allowed for certain knowledgeable individuals to meet in isolation in their respective states. Ideally, these men (as women were not allowed to participate in the eighteenth century) would make decisions for the good of their community.

Apologists for the Electoral College argue that these limitations were necessary, because founding fathers were largely skeptical of the critical faculties of voters. These reasons were particularly relevant during times of slavery, as an effective way of further disenfranchising minority populations.

However, critics like George Edwards argues that the factors that gave rise to the electoral college. Slavery has long been abolished, and most of the voters are literate. People are aware of the importance of education themselves about the issues of an election. Edwards further notes that the abolition of slavery has lessened the chance of destructive conflict between the different states (Edwards 78).

Another compelling reason often put forth by Electoral College supporters is the issue of state rights. Authors like Bernard Grofman and Scott Feld reported that states rights activists were worried that smaller states would be unfairly looked over in a popular vote (1). By allotting these states set electoral votes, the system therefore guards against the possibility that larger states impose their will over states with smaller populations.

However, Dan Felsenthal and Moshe Machover's study of electoral college and state votes belies this claim. The political scientist found that rather than protecting minority groups, the electoral college system encouraged candidates to concentrate their campaign efforts in states with larger populations, and thus proportionately larger shares of the electoral college votes. This study of presidential campaigns further found that presidential candidates rarely visited states with smaller populations and spent much less in terms of advertising revenue (Felsenthal and Machover 95-101).

The fact that candidates do not visit or advertise in smaller areas also raises corollary issues of concern. Edwards worries about how states that are not considered of limited value in the electoral college receive little attention in terms of voter education. In addition to learning about the candidates, campaigns are also seen as ways to learn about the issues being decided in an election. The neglect of smaller states in campaigns therefore means that the electoral college results in a significant segment of the population not benefiting from citizen education initiatives.

In summary, the institution of the electoral system was meant to guard against the imperialism of more populous states, and ensure that residents of smaller state have a voice in presidential elections. However, the unintended result was an election system that presumes voter ignorance and further disenfranchises the resident voters of smaller states.

Practical difficulties

In addition to the theoretical issues raised by the electoral college, there are many practical concerns as well, as illustrated by the 2000 Presidential Elections. While supporters of the electoral college argue that the possibility of a schism between the popular vote and the electoral vote is unlikely, this event has happened at least four times before. The elections of 1876, 1888, 1960 and 2000 show that the Electoral College could be manipulated. In addition, there were several "near misses," as documented by William Kimberling. Many schisms between popular and electoral college vote counts occurred in 1948, 1960, 1968 and 1976 (Kimberling).

These near misses have happened fairly recently, and it is not farfetched that similar disjoints between the popular and electoral college votes can occur in the future.

Edwards also raises the possibility that a candidate could fail to win a simple majority of votes for the electoral college. Such an event would call for "contingent elections." According to the U.S. Constitution, the Lower House would then be assigned to choose the president, while the Senate would be tasked with choosing the vice-president. As with the schisms between the popular and electoral college votes, contingent elections are quite rare. However, they have happened in the past, in 1800 and 1824 (Edwards 101).