The Electoral College System - Essay Example

?In a vibrant democracy, there is always the desire to change one’s government for the better such that it represents more of its citizens in a satisfactory way. Within this context, there are those parties in the United States who have this strong desire to change the structure of the federal government as a means of abolishing a long-held tradition of electoral vote. In the electoral vote, each state in the union receives the number of electoral votes equal to the number of its members to Congress, which varies considerably depending on that state’s particular population. States with large populations, like California and Texas, thus receive a greater share of the electoral vote than smaller states, like Rhode Island and Delaware. This system of giving a voice to the smaller states was a system designed by the Founding Fathers at the beginning of America’s history, when only a few states stood in existence (Hardaway 76). Just like many decisions of the federal government today, the Electoral College system was built from a compromise that gave greater strength to the union. The attempt to disassemble the Electoral College system undermines the ability of the country to provide effective leadership to elected officials, which in turn would make the country weaker in the end. Although the United States is commonly described as a democracy, it is in fact not a pure popular democracy like Ancient Greece, in which each citizen was invited to make decisions in the legislature (Diamond 7). Rather, the Constitution of the United States strictly limits power between individual citizens and the federal government. The Electoral College is one such limitation placed on the power of the people, and it must be understood properly within this historical (or Constitutional) context. Namely, while the United States is a democracy, the interests of the people are upheld by the representatives that take on that power. The electoral vote shares this power between the people and the government in a way that incorporates the interests of states, the people, and the federal government. With respect to the states, the Electoral College provides protection to the interests of smaller states, just as the Founding Fathers originally intended. At that time, the critical issue on everyone’s mind could not be avoided—namely, how the small and large states would share power in both the legislative and executive branches” (Hardaway 76). That is because the current system provides for the protection of all states’ rights. Remembering that the United States is a federation of states, and not one single state, each state is deserving of its own individual say in the election of the president to preside over that union. A popular vote undermines the concept of a federal system of states, causing candidates to focus only on the most populous, urban areas of the country. “Elections are as freely and democratically contested as elections can be—but in the states… Democracy thus is not the question regarding the electoral college; federalism is” (Gregg 7). There also appears to be a practical problem with changing the electoral vote system to a system of popular vote, which is its primary competitor. Fears surrounding the Electoral College deal with the possibility that the popular vote does not match the electoral vote. However, this is a nonexistent problem, considering “the fact that the electoral and popular vote winners have been the same in every presidential election conducted in the past 100 years” (Hardaway 11). In fact, because inconsistency between the two methods of measuring vote legitimacy is so rare in history, it seems practically irrelevant to implement the changes need to switch to a popular vote. Changing the electoral system would require an Amendment to the Constitution, which also poses a practical problem for Congressmen. Members of the House and Senate from large states, like California and Texas, will be unlikely to surrender their power over smaller states in return for a system that rarely differs from the one already in place (Durbin). One potential disadvantage the popular vote might raise in the United States, if it replaced the electoral vote, is that of a recount, which is a challenge to political legitimacy (Diamond 7). As elections in recent years have become closer in terms of the margin between the candidates, it is certainly possible that a close election could lead to accusations of voter-fraud and calls for a recount. Not only would this delay the election of a president, but also it could create questions of legitimacy for the president following an election. The Electoral College gives a more objective basis for determining the result of elections. In the election challenge of 2000, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, Bush triumphed because the electoral system provides that objective benchmark with which we can decide a winner. In the end, the country rallied behind its new leader, not questioning his position as president. Limiting the number of crucial votes to 538 as opposed to 300 million, as the electoral college does, there is much less of a margin of error in determining what a candidate needs to win his election in terms of the votes gained. One criticism frequently leveled at the Electoral College is that it causes candidates to focus only on so-called “swing states”, which vary in terms of their political affiliations in between election cycles (Durbin). For instance, states like Michigan and Florida typically receive higher levels of candidate attention during elections because of the voter diversity. On the other hand, states like Massachusetts and Texas typically vote one way in elections, for Democrats or Republicans respectively. Thus, the criticism is that the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns: causing them to campaign less in so-called “safe” states and to spend more resources in states that could potentially swing their way and change the results of the election. As a result, politicians are less concerned or less in tune with the problems or concerns of certain geographical areas within the country. Nevertheless, such a criticism ignores the fact that America is a large country with a myriad of different perspectives and people. A system that encourages those candidates who appeal to a broader base of constituents (beyond those contained merely within the “swing states”) is more likely to produce a government that listens to the entire country, as opposed to a select portion of it. The electoral system, unlike the popular vote system like that in place in countries like the United Kingdon where only the interests of London and the surrounding areas are heard in Parliament, encourages participation in government from many different states. That is, it is not merely enough for a presidential candidate to earn support from a few large states, when it is clear that he does not represent the interests of small states as well. “At least a substantially plurality of popular votes countrywide are ultimately elected, and smaller parties representing narrow interests must either compromise or merge with a major party” (Hardaway 16). Additionally, the political affiliations and political diversity of the states is not static. Parts of the country are not “given” in all elections. It is certain that any other system other than the Electoral College would provide no benefit to the legitimacy of elected politicians. In fact, a popular vote system would create far more problems than it solves. Considering that the United States is not a true direct democracy, there is no constitutional or philosophical basis on which one can argue that the Electoral College is unjust. It represents the fact that the United States is not one centralized state like most other countries in which a popular vote is used; rather, it is a decentralized union of states, of which each deserves some say in the election of federal executives. This ensures representation for all, which is one of the bases for the founding of the United States in the first place. As such, it seems that the United States should uphold the Constitutional necessity and political practicality of maintaining its electoral vote system. Bibliography Diamond, Martin. Testimony in Support of the Electoral College. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977. Durbin, Richard J. Should the Current Electoral College System be Preserved? January 2001. March 2011 . Gregg, Gary L. "The Origins and Meaning of the Electoral College." Gregg, Gary L. Securing Democracy: Why We Have the Electoral College. 2nd. Washington D.C.: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2008. Hardaway, Robert M. The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case for Preserving Federalism. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1994. Read More