Electoral College 45 marker plan

“The system for nominating a President should be replaced by a national popular vote.” Discuss.

Yes	No
The Electoral College suppresses the popular will. The EC allows a candidate to win the presidency despite winning a minority of votes across the country as a whole. Happened on three occasions, most notably though was in 2000 when Al Gore won more votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency in the EC. The other way in which the EC suppresses the popular will is through the existence of ‘faithless’ or ‘rogue’ electors who refuses to vote for their state’s preferred presidential candidate. Typically, electors will vote for a candidate the majority of the state support, but there are cases when this does not happen. For example, in 2000, Barbara Lett Simmons, an elector from Washington D.C abstained from voting for Al Gore to protest about the lack of congressional representation for Washington D.C. Since the EC’s establishment, there have been 80 faithless electors, while they don’t exactly affect the outcome of an election; they collectively mean that the wishes of millions of US voters were not respected.	It’s very rare that the popular vote winner loses in the Electoral College. In the past 125 years, the 2000 election was the only liability, and even that was really close (0.5% of the popular vote difference between Gore and Bush). Other occasions where the popular vote winner lost the EC was in 1884, 1872 and 1836. But they’re not really relevant given the fact US democracy was not developed much back then. The current system delivers an Electoral Win for a candidate who wins the national popular vote substantially as seen from Obama. Obama had done so twice, most recently by 51% to 47%. Although rogue electors are indeed possible, they’re rare they do not effect the outcome of the election and if it does, it can be dealt with by state law.
The Electoral College results in some votes being counted more than others, or they’re worth more. This is due to the structure of the EC as the number of Electors for each state is based on each state’s representation in Congress. Every state regardless of size has 2 senators, so states with relatively small populations are over-represented in the Electoral College. In 2012 for example, the 6 least populated states combined had the same number of EC votes (18) as Ohio. But Ohio’s population in 2012 was 3x the combined population of the 6 smallest states. Meaning that a vote cast in Ohio effectively carried less than one-third of the weight of a vote in one of the six smallest states. This is unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic.	However, the EC ensures decisive results through a two-party system that gives voters a clear choice of two candidates. The president will almost ALWAYS gain over half the votes in the country and be seen as the one with a strong mandate to govern. The EC achieves this by ensuring the winning candidate wins both a plurality of the vote at state level and is able to appeal to voters across the USA. This makes it difficult for third-party candidates to develop high levels of support, which could consequently produce a winner with only 1/3 of the popular vote. A national party vote would make it easy for third-party candidates to pick up votes. They would be unlikely to win but would deny a candidate an absolute majority of the popular vote and thus weaken the president’s mandate to govern.
All of the states aside from Maine and Nebraska award their Electoral College votes on a ‘winner=takes-all’ basis. The majority of these states can be relied on voting for a particular party’s candidate. For example, Alaska will vote Republican and Minnesota Democrat. This means that the outcome of the Presidential election is decided in a small number of ‘swing’ states. In the run-up to the 2012 election, Obama and Romney spent almost $100 together on TV ads in the swing state of Ohio. They spent no money on California despite it’s population being more than 3x the size of Ohio. No money was spent in California because they’ve always voted for Democrat candidates ever since 1988. The EC means candidates can effectively ignore a large majority of states in their campaigns. They don’t visit the states, don’t advertise in them and do not address issues specific to them.	Through the Electoral College it is the STATES that choose the president, not a narrow majority of the overall population. If this is changed then one of the most major constitutional planks which reflect shared sovereignty of the US system will be removed: protecting states’ rights and interests. Someone saying this federal system is undemocratic clearly misunderstands the USA’s federal democracy. Representation within the EC is broadly proportional but it ensures smaller states also get the voice by giving them a minimum of 3 EC votes. A national popular vote system would mean the voices of these small states would be singled out. For example, in 2012 New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada (less populated states) were 3 of the key nine swing states that got a lot of attention.
Those who oppose the Electoral College claim it to be an anachronism. The US constitution was written over 200 years ago, back when US democracy was less developed and there were only 13 states. The founding fathers were reluctant to place too much power into the hands of the people. But the country has changed significantly since then and is seen by the 17th amendment (allowed each state’s senators to be elected directly by its voters). Also, 26 states passed legislation that requires electors to vote in accordance with the wishes of that state’s voters. These 2 changes are but a few which emphasise the importance of people being able to vote directly for their representatives.	The EC requires a president to win votes from a wide variety of states. A president elected this way is more likely to govern with the interests of all American’s in mind, a national popular vote system would allow big urban states to impose a president on the rest of the country. This greatly increases legitimacy for example in negotiating with Congress over legislation. This somewhat happened in 2008 and 2012 elections, Obama had to win not only states such as Michigan and Ohio, but also Nevada and Colorado in order to assemble a winning coalition in the EC.