Electoral College and Constitution

American Democracy The Electoral College as it currently functions is a way of getting around the "popular vote" -- as Underhill (2012) notes in "Changing Up the Electoral College?" However, Gregg (2011) puts an entirely different spin on the Electoral College by viewing it as "a compromise" between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist agendas that went into forming the Constitution (p. 34). Gregg asserts that the Electoral College allows special representatives to select after a republican process (direct voting) the executive. In other words, it combines popular vote with representative vote.

Essentially, the popular vote is limited to states and does not count for the nation as a whole. The individual winner of a state's popular vote is assigned electoral votes -- and while one state may have many more people/voters than another -- these numbers are only represented by the electoral votes when it comes time to choosing the national winner of the executive office. I am not in support of the current Electoral College because I think it denies Americans the right to a truly national popular vote.

By limiting the popular vote process to the states, it ensures that more populated states will have less sway in the national election. But since it is a national election and not a state election, the popular vote should be counted nationwide, not just within state borders. The proposed changes by the National Popular Vote Plan (NPVP) make sense -- but I would rather see an actual amendment to the Constitution because as Gregg (2011) points out -- the NPVP is just a way of getting around the Constitution (p.

33), and I am not in favor of that. I think the status quo has to be changed to be more reflective of the sovereignty and will of the people on a national level, since the office is a national-level office -- but I believe the change should come via legislation -- i.e., an amendment to the Constitution. The NPVP proposes that states should be able to circumvent the Constitution by pledging the electoral votes for their state to the winner of the national popular vote.

While in theory, the winner of the national popular vote should be win the office in my opinion, I do not like the idea of circumventing the Constitution. If this is what states want, then representatives/legislators should amend the law. Law-abiding practices should be promoted -- not practices that promote going around or ignoring the law just because changing it would be too much work or too much of a bother. That does not send the right message to the public at all.

The arguments about having a national popular vote leading to demagoguery (Gregg, 2011) or other negative issues simply do not make sense. Today's elections are full of demagoguery, of pandering, of bribing through campaign contributions and of party politics (one need only point out the way that the "leaked" emails of the DNC showed how the DNC -- which is supposed to be impartial -- colluded with Clinton in supporting her campaign with the press over Sanders). Any strategy that can be.