The Electoral College: An Examination of its Pros and Cons by Population

The Electoral College is a deeply debated topic in American politics. As the 2020 presidential election approached, understanding this governmental institution became increasingly important, as it has often been the deciding factor in American presidential races. This article aims to explore the pros and cons of the Electoral College, especially in relation to population distribution, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments for and against its existence.

What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is an indirect method for electing the President and Vice President of the United States. Originally outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, and later updated by the Twelfth Amendment, this system involves a designated group of people (electors) from each state who are chosen to pick a president on behalf of their state. It's not a school of any form, but a designated group of people from each state who are chosen to pick a president on behalf of their state. The electoral votes are apportioned amongst the states to reflect the population of the country. For example, the results of the 2020 Census determined that Texas would gain two more votes in the Electoral College for the next 10 years. One additional vote was gained by Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon. Under the Electoral College system, in order to win the presidential race, a candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes. There are a total of 538 electors. In most cases, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has the most votes from the popular vote in their state elections in a winner-take-all fashion.

The original plan called for each elector to cast two votes for president. Whoever received a majority of votes from electors became president; the runner-up became vice president. States can do what they want with their electoral votes. Most give them to the candidate who wins a state majority. An elector who defies that assignment is called a faithless elector, and the state has the choice whether to tolerate them.

Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College

Despite being criticized by many, the Electoral College has some advantages.

Giving Voice to Smaller States

One of the primary arguments in favor of the Electoral College is that it ensures all regions of the country are involved in selecting the president and prevents candidates from focusing solely on populous urban areas. If presidents were elected purely by popular vote, a candidate could win the presidency with less than 50% of the vote. Without the Electoral College, candidates might concentrate their energies on densely populated metro areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Depending on your perspective, that might sound like a change for the worse. It would mean candidates would have little reason to consider, say, the state of farming in Iowa or the opiate crisis in New Hampshire. The electoral college gives small states more weight in the political process than their population would otherwise confer.

Every state gets a minimum of three electoral votes. However, each state’s total allotment is based on its representation in the Senate (always two people) and the House (varies by population). “So take Washington, D.C., as an example,” says DeRosa. “More people live in D.C. than in Wyoming, the least populous state in the union; but they both get three electoral votes.” (Plus, unlike Wyoming, D.C.

The Electoral College preserves the principles of federalism that are essential to our constitutional republic. The United States is a large country made up of people from very different regions and cultures, and federalism is an important way of preserving the differences that make us unique while uniting us behind one common federal government. The Electoral College prevents presidential candidates from winning an election by focusing solely on high-population urban centers and dense media markets, forcing them to seek the support of a larger cross-section of the American electorate. Large cities like New York City and Los Angeles should not get to unilaterally dictate policies that affect more rural states, like North Dakota and Indiana, which have very different needs. These states may be smaller, but their values still matter-they should have a say in who becomes President.

Promoting National Unity and Stability

Another advantage is the end result is clear: “Somebody wins; somebody gets a majority of the electoral votes”. There’s no need for a national recount when you have an electoral college. If one state has voting issues, you can just do a recount in that state rather than creating national upheaval. And to win, a candidate must garner the support of voters in a variety of regions. That means whoever wins the presidency must build a truly national coalition. This, in turn, helps promote national cohesion and the peaceful transfer of power between presidents and helps keep the nation’s political system stable.

The Electoral College increases the legitimacy and certainty of elections by magnifying the margin of victory, thereby diminishing the value of contentious recounts and providing a demonstrable election outcome and a mandate to govern. In contrast, a popular vote system with just a plurality requirement could lead to the election of presidential candidates by unprecedented, small margins. These smaller victory margins, combined with the overall decrease in popular support for a single candidate, could trigger chaotic and contested elections. The Electoral College makes elections more stable, and less likely to trigger contentious recounts. Every state has different procedural rules for the administration of elections, including how recounts are triggered and conducted and how provisional ballots are counted. The 2000 presidential election saw an unprecedented vote recount in Florida that was a belabored, emotional, and costly process, even though it was limited to only one state.

Discouraging Voter Fraud

While no system can completely eliminate the risk of individuals trying to cheat the system, the Electoral College minimizes the incentives for voter fraud because the system isolates the impact of stolen votes. Under the current system, stolen votes only affect the outcome of one state rather than the national outcome. With a national popular vote, every additional vote a presidential candidate could obtain anywhere in the country could make the difference between winning or losing a national election.

Facilitating Campaigning

The fact that certain states and their electoral votes are safely in the column of one party or the other makes it easier and cheaper for candidates to campaign successfully. They can focus their energies on the battleground states. Some argue that getting rid of the electoral college could make American presidential elections even more expensive than they already are, exacerbating what some see as America’s campaign finance problem.

Criticisms of the Electoral College

Despite the arguments in its favor, the Electoral College faces significant criticism, primarily related to its potential to undermine the principle of "one person, one vote."

Disproportionate Weight to Voters in Small States

The first problem with the Electoral College is that it gives more weight to voters in small states than those in more populous ones. Every state gets a minimum of three electoral votes. However, each state’s total allotment is based on its representation in the Senate (always two people) and the House (varies by population).

Encouraging Vote Suppression

The biggest problem with the Electoral College is that it encourages vote suppression. Southern states always had an advantage in the population count, because they got electoral votes appointed on the basis of their slave populations and their white populations. After the Civil War, former slaves were counted as “whole” persons, not three-fifths of one, for purposes of electoral vote allotment. But Black voter suppression still took place through Jim Crow laws. This further “inflated the electoral count of people who were not representing all the people in their state".

The Possibility of Disagreement with the Popular Vote

Remember the 2000 election when Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college, and therefore the presidency? eliminates the electoral college, that scenario would never happen again. The potential for the electoral college to conflict with the result of the popular vote is one of the most commonly cited arguments against the electoral college. This occurred in both the 2000 and 2016 elections. George W. Bush became president after receiving fewer Electoral College votes than his opponent, Al Gore. This outcome can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement among voters and undermine the legitimacy of the election results.

According to the Pew Research Center, 80% “favor replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote system.” This concern stems from the 2000 and 2016 elections, where Democratic candidates won the popular vote but lost the presidency due to the Electoral College system. As a result, critics say that this mechanism disproportionately amplifies the influence of less populous states and swing states, and effectively sidelines the majority’s choice.

Unequal Attention to Voters

If you don’t live in a swing state like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and more, you probably won’t see as many ads, have as many canvassers come to your door or get polled as frequently. The electoral college means that swing states - which aren’t necessarily the most representative of the country as a whole - get most of the attention. And even within swing states, certain counties are more competitive than others. That means voters in those counties are courted particularly hard. If that offends your sense of fairness and you think that candidates should fight for the votes of all Americans, you may oppose the electoral college. In fact, this result has ended up creating the same thing that the electoral college is supposed to prevent, which is candidates focusing on a few specific areas.

The Risk of "Rogue Electors"

Many states have no law requiring electors to vote the way their state has voted. Electors in these states are “unbound.” Therefore, the electoral college is based on a set of traditions that electors vote the way their state votes. However, there’s always the possibility of “rogue” or “faithless” electors who could give a vote to a candidate who didn’t win the elector’s state. This also worries critics of the electoral college.

Public Opinion on the Electoral College

The debate over the Electoral College remains a prominent issue in American politics. On one side of the argument, critics say that the Electoral College can lead to outcomes where the presidency is secured without winning the popular vote. This is the case for many Democrats and their supporters. The Pew Research Center says that Republicans and Republican supporters are more evenly divided, with 53% in favor keeping the Electoral College, and 46% wanting to replace it.

More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) would instead prefer to see the winner of the presidential election be the person who wins the most votes nationally. Roughly a third (35%) favor retaining the Electoral College system, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 9,720 adults conducted Aug. 26-Sept. Majorities across all age groups support changing the system. However, adults younger than 50 are somewhat more supportive of this than those ages 50 and older (66% vs.

Possible Reforms to the Electoral College

Given the ongoing debate, several reform proposals have been suggested. One approach is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which could theoretically accomplish a popular vote system without a constitutional amendment. There’s a movement to encourage states to split their electors in proportion to the percentage of the state vote that each candidate gets. While that wouldn’t eliminate the electoral college, it would change the winner-take-all nature of our system and the way candidates think about state campaigns.

tags: #electoral #college #pros #and #cons #by