Electoral College vs. National Popular Vote: A Policy Analysis
This paper examines the ongoing debate between the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote (NPV) as mechanisms for electing the U.S. President. It outlines common criticisms of the Electoral College — including its winner-take-all structure and its tendency to concentrate campaign attention on battleground states — before turning a critical eye toward the NPV as an alternative. The paper argues that the NPV introduces its own problems, including an infrastructure mismatch across state electoral systems and the risk of heightened demographic polarization. The author also contends that bypassing the constitutional amendment process to implement the NPV reflects partisan motivations rather than principled reform, ultimately recommending that the Electoral College be preserved in its current form.
- Introduction: How the Electoral College Works: Overview of Electoral College structure and operation
- Criticisms of the Electoral College: Key flaws critics identify in current system
- Problems with the National Popular Vote: Practical and demographic drawbacks of NPV plan
- Constitutional Concerns and Partisan Motivations: NPV seen as partisan bypass of amendment process
- Conclusion: Retaining the Electoral College: Recommendation to keep Electoral College as-is
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper presents a clear, structured argument: it acknowledges genuine flaws in the Electoral College before systematically rebutting the proposed alternative, which gives the position intellectual honesty.
- It uses a specific, cited source (Gregg, 2011) to support a functional critique of the NPV, grounding an otherwise opinion-driven argument in external evidence.
- The paper connects abstract constitutional principles to concrete political dynamics — such as noting that NPV-supporting states are predominantly "blue" states — to support its claim of partisan motivation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the technique of concession and refutation: the author openly grants that the Electoral College has real weaknesses before arguing that the proposed alternative is equally or more problematic. This approach strengthens credibility by showing the writer has considered opposing views rather than dismissing them outright.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by describing how the Electoral College currently functions and summarizing its known criticisms. It then pivots to evaluate the NPV on practical and demographic grounds, followed by a constitutional/normative argument against bypassing the amendment process. The conclusion synthesizes both strands — practical and principled — to recommend retaining the status quo. The argument flows from descriptive to evaluative to prescriptive, a classic policy-analysis structure.
Introduction: How the Electoral College Works
The current function of the Electoral College is that each state holds a set number of electoral votes for the presidency, proportional to that state's population. The candidate who wins the most votes in a given state receives all of that state's Electoral College votes. This winner-take-all structure has drawn sustained criticism from those who point out its inherent flaws.
For example, the system does not differentiate between a landslide victory and a narrow one, and it encourages politicians to compete almost exclusively in battleground states, effectively ignoring the needs of voters in non-competitive states. These concerns are legitimate: under this system, a candidate can win the presidency despite the opposing candidate having received more votes nationwide. That outcome does not reflect a perfectly functioning democratic system.
Criticisms of the Electoral College
Critics of the Electoral College have proposed replacing it with a national popular vote as the method for determining the presidency. The appeal of this alternative is straightforward — in a true democracy, the candidate who receives the most votes should win. The popular vote would eliminate the distortions created by the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes and, in theory, force candidates to campaign across the entire country rather than concentrating resources on a handful of swing states.
Works Referenced
Gregg, Gary L. "Unpopular Vote: Enemies of the Electoral College Aim to Scrap the Founders' Design." The American Conservative 10.12 (2011).
Underhill, Wendy. "Changing Up the Electoral College?" State Legislatures 38.1 (2012).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.