Electoral College System A Necessary Part of Elections

The reason for the Electoral College is so that larger states (in terms of population) are not given an unfair advantage over smaller states. For example if a large state with a large population votes for one president, that state still is only able to contribute a set number of electoral votes to that president; this is meant as a protection of other states, who may not have as many voters but still have a right to a voice in the election process. The thinking is that a state with a large population cannot sway the vote inordinately in the direction that it chooses. This is controversial among those who view the country as a whole and not as a union of individual states.

The Electoral College is more of a states' rights issue. Some people, however, view the process as outmoded and feel that elections should be won by popular vote and not by the electoral votes of individual states. Thus, if the majority of the people in, say, New York and California choose to vote for one president, their votes will have just as much impact as many several other states combined simply because of the number of people voting in those states. Popular vote plays to the regional advantage of these states as a result -- and smaller states are less represented in effect. The popular vote supporters assert that such should be the case anyway, since smaller states have a smaller number of people typically -- but states' rights advocates assert that the Constitution was established in order to protect states' rights against populism and central power.

As Underhill (2012) notes, "four presidents have been elected without winning a majority of the popular vote" -- a point which seems to condemn the process. However, the fact is that these presidents were elected on a state by state basis -- not on a popular vote basis, so pointing out that they did not receive the majority of the popular votes is irrelevant because that is not how the system was set up to work. It is only made an issue by persons who believe the system is unfair and needs to change. As Gregg (2011) points out, these individuals are "enemies" of the plan set up by the nation's founding fathers. The National Popular Vote Plan (NVP) is their solution to the "problem" of the Electoral College -- which is only a problem if one is a populist rather than a proponent of states' rights. The NVP calls for every state to "pledge its electoral votes" to the winner of the national popular vote in the election -- an act that would circumvent the Constitution and render the Electoral College essentially pointless.

The Electoral College is set up so that each state is limited in the extent to which it can have an impact on an election -- that is the point, after all, of having individual states. The proponents of the NVP, however, would just as soon consider the U.S. as one big state with one central government -- which is completely out of line with the way the Constitution was established (which was in order, theoretically, to protect states' rights).

I support the idea of the current Electoral College because I believe states should have a limited ability to impact the overall outcome of an election. Popular vote should be reserved for the individual states, and the states together should then make up the Electoral College that chooses a winner. Popular vote should not be reserved for the entire nation because then the individual states give up one more of their rights in the electoral process. By sending their electoral delegates to vote for the person whom the voters of the state support, the state is listening to its citizens only and not to the citizens of every other state: this provides autonomy and independence for each state and resists the herd mentality and the increasing risk of centralization, which the Anti-Federalists were firmly against (as am I).

The Framers of the American Constitution invented a system that not only established democracy, it protected minority rights. Through the creation of the Electoral College, those that lived in smaller states had more protection meaning their votes meant for something and were not just stifled by the voices of the majority. Securing presidency for an American Presidential Candidate means receiving the majority of electoral votes. Determination of electoral votes lay in the number of U.S. Representatives each state had and adding two, equaling the number of Senators each state has. Even smaller states like Rhode Island all have a minimum of three electoral votes. Aside from smaller states getting access to electoral votes, minorities have more political presence because...

Taking the electoral votes away removes these extra voting power minorities would otherwise never have. Going back to a former presidential election with Vice President Gore and Former President Bush, Gore's supporters claim he won the popular vote. Because he won the majority of the popular vote, he should have been president. While he won 49% of the popular vote, and there was a desire for a recount, once absentee votes were counted, Bush eked out the win.
Once more, should there have been a recount, thanks to the electoral college system, only the states where the electoral votes mattered the most would be recounted like Florida. This save time and it also remove potential state influence nationwide. What does this mean?

A voting system where popular vote dictated elections would encourage some states (in particular, one-party states) to alter voting requirements, increasing their respect influence across the country. "For example, a state could drop the voting age to 17 or 16, because more people voting would allow that state affect the national vote, not just the electoral vote. Indeed, if a simple majority governed, both the candidates and the voters would have acted differently" (Rotunda, 2000). Texas and California are large states with a denser population than say Maine. Bush would have rallied for votes in Texas to counteract any votes Gore would have rallied for in California. Thanks to the Electoral College system, political candidates with only regional appeal are prevented from winning.

A good comparison of the electoral college and the sub-elections it produces are games won within a World Series. Instead of the total number of games a team wins, it is certain games won that influence winning the World Series. Gore could have won the popular vote, but because he did not win the electoral votes in certain states, he did not have enough votes to garner a win. The Electoral College system is just another means of checking and balancing how democracy is applied during elections.

If team A wins the first game 11 runs to zero, and team B wins the next four games one run to zero, we all know that team B has won the World Series. After all, if Bush won 100% of the popular vote in his home state of Texas, thereby prevailing in the nationwide popular vote, those extra votes would not show he had more support nationwide, only that he is a candidate popular in one very populous state (Rotunda, 2000).

Some people say the will of the people becomes stifled when popular vote does not count as much as the electoral vote does. Some will even say it disenfranchises citizens making them feel as though their vote does not count, effectively depressing voter turnout. However, the Electoral College System contributes to country cohesion by distributing popular support. While some may not like the idea of minority presidents or minority people taking office, the Electoral College system enhances the status of minority interests. The 'spread' of popular vote also contributes to longer term political stability via encouragement of a two-party system, maintaining a federal system of fair representation and government.

The Electoral College System circumvents and prevents attempts of large populations dominating politics via strong regional interests. Again, using the example of Texas, some interests in Texas include pro-life, anti-gay, pro-gun, and prayer in schools. While there is nothing wrong with expressing beliefs and desires, if these conservative Texans were allowed to dictate the political outcomes of the country, the United States would be radically different than what it is today, especially when it comes to the gay rights movement. Thankfully, not one large population with a strong regional interest can dictate any political outcomes on that level, most due to the Electoral College System.

People assume this way of voting divides people, but in reality, it stabilizes everything. With no one group dominating the other, several groups can try and attempt to have their voices heard. In the last two elections, the Hispanic vote was an important aspect of the Obama campaign. Another target…