'The Electoral College should be replaced by a national Popular Vote'. Discuss

Tamanna Moushumi 

The Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote. Discuss.

The Electoral College exists an unnecessary anachronism which places the power of selecting the presidential candidate with electors, who could potentially vote against the will of the people. Arguably, this is an undemocratic method due to the nomination process prior to the Electoral College being so participatory. However, a national popular vote would aim to eradicate the legacy left behind by the Founding Fathers. The legacy invites the smaller states to have prominence, but it has been seen that the least populous states have been given a disproportionate amount of undue prominence. So whilst many problems exist within the existing system, it would not serve effective to replace the entire system, but rather to amend and mend it.

Historically, there have always been discrepancies with the Electoral College, as it arguably supresses the popular will. In 2000, during the Gore-Bush election, the popular will was supressed by the Electoral College as Gore won 0.8% more votes than Bush did, yet Bush won eight more states than Gore. The Electoral College functions through simple majorities, which again, Bush won with 271 Electoral College votes. Therefore, it could be argued that the system favours candidates who have the ability to work their way through the system due to the broad support that they can access through the system. A national popular vote however, could be introduced as a complimentary step to the Electoral College, when thinking about reform. Popular will often prevails when a candidate is presidential in their characteristics; Obama won two consecutive terms in office with 51% and 47% of the popular vote. Arguably, this should suggest that the popular will is indeed supressed, yet it is the quality of a presidential candidate to achieve the broadest amount of support across the country to be successful rather than winning the support of concentrated pockets of people.

A further problem associated with the Electoral College is the differing values votes in different states have. Amusingly, the smaller states have a disproportionate amount of influence over the larger states and are overrepresented in the Electoral College. This becomes a problem due to the larger states having the same population as roughly six of the smaller states combined, yet the lack of political voice and representation in selecting the president. In theory, this seems outrageous, but it was proven that in 2012, a vote in Ohio carried less than a third of what a vote was worth in the six smallest states. An undue amount of prominence is given to the smaller states rather than the larger states, which does prevent tyranny of the majority, which is undoubtedly one of the greatest characteristics of the legacy left behind by the Founding Fathers.

Moreover, the Electoral College produces decisive results, which is another key characteristic of the current Electoral College. If the Electoral College was abolished, then the president would be able to win a presidency on a 40% mandate, which would not be strong enough to govern an entire country. The decisive results that are produced as a result of the Electoral College providing the scope for the most diverse demographic of supporters throughout the country, presenting the Electoral College to be a representative method of voting. However, it could be argued that some states do not have the necessary legislation put in place to prevent ‘rogue’ voting, outside of the interests of the state. A famous example of a rogue elector was Barbara Lett Simmons, who failed to vote for the Electoral College in dissatisfaction for the underrepresentation of Washington DC in the Electoral College. Having said that, there are few faithless or rogue electors during election time that will or have changed the result of an election.

With the advancing dynamics of politics, the Electoral College has been described as an ‘unnecessary anachronism’ suggesting the Electoral College is outdated for today’s society having been established over two hundred years ago by the Founding Fathers. The Fathers had set out for the equality of states, following the American Civil war, providing each state a ‘proportionate’ congressional representation. This is why each state has two senators and one House Representative at minimum. The disproportionately of the system arises as there is not a scale in terms of size of population that evenly distributes the congressional representation equally. On the other hand it could be argued that the Electoral College is a historic constitutional plank that if changed would destroy the Founding Father’s initial intentions and ideas for the USA. This suggests that changing the Electoral College would diminish the federalist principles that the USA has been governed with for the last two centuries.
On the other hand, a national popular vote would tackle the problem of established ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states , which would mean the Electoral College is not won by the prominence of states that the presidential candidates have decided to campaign in. Obama and Romney spent $100 million on advertising in the swing state of Ohio in 2012, suggesting the prominence of the votes in Ohio, compared to those in New Mexico or California who would almost automatically vote Democrat, and therefore no money was spent on TV advertising. The process necessitates diversity in policy for the presidential candidate proving the system is fair, as presidential candidates have to make regional specific address of issues. The Electoral College should therefore be reformed, with perhaps an addition of a national popular vote as part of the process, as it is far too easy to detect the states in which it is worth campaigning in.

Arguably, the Electoral College underpins the scope for both a plurality system as well as a majority system, providing the best characteristic of the Electoral College. Removing the Electoral College would remove a fundamentally important element of American history and would defy the purpose of federalism entirely. A national popular vote would indeed please voters in concentrated areas, but wouldn’t provide the broad, overarching support the Electoral College is able to provide. Conclusively, the Electoral College should remain in place and should not be replaced.