This paper argues that the United States Electoral College system should be abolished and replaced with a direct popular vote. Beginning with the contested 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, the paper examines the historical origins of the Electoral College, its theoretical justifications, and its practical shortcomings. It analyzes how the "winner-take-all" allocation of electoral votes disenfranchises voters in smaller states, encourages candidates to focus campaign resources on populous battleground states, and creates the possibility of contingent elections. Drawing on scholars including George Edwards, Dan Felsenthal, and Moshe Machover, the paper concludes that the Electoral College is an outdated, inegalitarian institution incompatible with modern democratic principles.
The Presidential Election of 2000 once again raised doubts about 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 Bush'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, in which each citizen receives one vote.
The first part of this paper examines the composition of the Electoral College and the conditions that led to its creation. The subsequent sections detail why the current political and social climate no longer necessitates the Electoral College system. First, this paper points out that concerns such as slavery and presidential independence are no longer relevant today. Second, it argues that many 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 raise further complications requiring "contingent elections."
The founders of the Constitutional Convention created the Electoral College system, but they most likely did not intend the problems that this cumbersome system has produced. They also likely did not intend for the system to become the antithesis of egalitarian institutions. This paper therefore maintains that the Electoral College should be replaced with a more democratic system.
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 equals the number of its senators and representatives, with the District of Columbia allocated three votes. This comes to a total of 538 electoral votes. To win a presidential election, a candidate must carry at least half of the total electoral votes (Wilson and DiLulio 373).
The task of winning a majority of electoral votes is shaped by the "all or nothing" system of counting. Maine and Nebraska are the two exceptions, where electoral votes can be split between candidates on the basis of their popular vote totals. In all other states, however, the candidate who wins a simple majority of the popular vote is awarded all of the state's electoral votes (Wilson and DiLulio 373).
It is this "winner-take-all" system that allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. This remains one of the greatest criticisms leveled against the institution.
The Electoral College was founded on principles that run counter to democratic institutions. In essence, it allowed certain knowledgeable individuals to meet in isolation in their respective states and, ideally, make decisions for the good of their community. Women were not permitted to participate in the eighteenth century, and the system as a whole reflected deep skepticism about ordinary voters' capacity for sound judgment.
Apologists for the Electoral College argue that these limitations were necessary because the founding fathers were largely doubtful of voters' critical faculties. These concerns were particularly prominent during the era of slavery, as the system served as an effective means of further disenfranchising minority populations.
However, critics such as George Edwards contend that the factors giving rise to the Electoral College are no longer relevant. Slavery has long been abolished, and most voters are literate. People are aware of the importance of educating themselves about the issues at stake in an election. Edwards further notes that the abolition of slavery has lessened the risk of destructive conflict between states (Edwards 78).
Another compelling argument often put forward by Electoral College supporters concerns state rights. Authors Bernard Grofman and Scott Feld report that states' rights advocates worried that smaller states would be unfairly overlooked in a popular vote system (1). By allotting these states a set number of electoral votes, the system is meant to guard against the possibility that larger states impose their will on states with smaller populations.
However, Dan Felsenthal and Moshe Machover's study of electoral college and state votes challenges this claim. These political scientists found that rather than protecting smaller states, the Electoral College encourages candidates to concentrate their campaign efforts in states with larger populations — and thus proportionately larger shares of electoral votes. Their study of presidential campaigns further found that candidates rarely visited smaller states and spent significantly less on advertising there (Felsenthal and Machover 95–101).
The fact that candidates do not visit or advertise in smaller states also raises further concerns. Edwards worries that states considered of limited electoral value receive little attention in terms of voter education. In addition to introducing voters to the candidates, campaigns are also vehicles for informing the public about the issues being decided in an election. The neglect of smaller states in presidential campaigns therefore means that a significant segment of the population is denied the benefits of civic education initiatives.
In summary, the Electoral College was intended to protect less populous states from the dominance of larger ones and to ensure that their residents have a voice in presidential elections. The unintended result, however, is an election system that presumes voter ignorance and further disenfranchises the residents of the very states it was meant to protect.
"Real-world failures and manipulation risks"
An investigation into the history of the Electoral College shows that the social conditions it was meant to guard against no longer exist. As a system, it endangers the ability of small states to receive meaningful attention from presidential candidates. Moreover, the system itself is unreliable, open to manipulation, and prone to error.
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.