The Archaic Electoral College for Presidential Elections - Research Paper Example

First Last Dr. TeacherFirst TeacherLast 9 March Presidential elections in the United s should be decided by popular vote Introduction The office of the Chief Executive of the government in the United States is the President. Unlike other Western democracies, elections for the President and Vice President in the United States take place using the indirect process of Electoral College. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. agreed on this system over 200 years ago as a midway “compromise between direct popular vote and voting through the Congress” ("What is the Electoral College?"). More recently, and particularly after the 2000 Presidential elections, there has been a renewed debate over the viability of this method. This debate focuses on several aspects of the Electoral College process, chiefly considering the questions of whether it is democratic enough or not, whether the balance is tilted towards opinion in a few states, whether it encourages or discourages voters to vote, or whether state oriented elections can decide the Chief Executive of the national government. The opinion expressed in this paper is that reforms in the Electoral College mechanism incorporating the importance of national popular vote will make the elections more inclusive of national opinion and therefore more democratic. Background Firstly, it is important to describe how the Electoral College method currently works. Every four years, in this indirect election method, U.S. citizens vote for Electors in their respective states who, in turn, vote for a Presidential candidate. With some exceptions, when a party receives majority in a particular state, Electors from that party are deemed to have won the state. There are a total of 538 electors in the Electoral College system. When a party wins enough states to reach a count of at least 270 electors, the Presidential nominee from that party wins the election. So, a President wins the election by an aggregate of statewide electors rather than the total number of nationwide votes. The number of Electors in each state is equal to the total number of Senators and U.S. Representatives in it (“How the Electoral College Functions” 10). Since the number of U.S. Representatives is based on population, more populous states have more electors. The electors only take part in this one time vote and are not responsible for any future legislative work. They are appointees of participating political parties and typically always vote in favor of their party’s respective candidate. The debate Historically, on four occasions the winning president did not receive the popular vote with the latest being the 2000 elections (“How the Electoral College Functions” 17) when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush by a slim margin of Electoral College votes despite receiving a higher nationwide popular vote. Bush won 271 Electoral College votes, with a margin of only 1 vote above the minimum required. The 2000 elections renewed the long held debate of why shouldn’t U.S. citizens be able to elect their President through popular vote rather than the current indirect statewide Electoral College method? Those who support the indirect Electoral College method maintain that it is not “less” democratic and is, in fact, a better representation of the federal structure of the government. According to them it reinforces federalism by distributing popular will across individual states. The other advantage they cite related to federalism is that less populous states are given due representation on account of their Senate seats and abandoning the Electoral College would put them at a disadvantage. Federalism is the cornerstone of U.S. democracy and the argument is indeed strong. However, a closer look reveals that it seems more an effort to maintain status quo than to recognize that improvements in the system will bring it closer to democratic ideals. Federalism means that each administrative unit within a nation has a say in the overall decision making. The Senate already ensures federalism by sending two members from every state regardless of their population size, an aspect opponents of reform conveniently ignore. No law can be passed in the nation without being approved by the Senate. Another important aspect they overlook is the effect of the swing states in the current system which destroys their argument of federalism. Several states like California and Texas consistently vote for one party and receive very little campaigning attention. Swing states, where the contest is real and the result could go either way, receive most of campaigning attention and it is voters in these states which have the highest effect on the election result. So, it can be argued that, in reality, the current system results in a heavy tilt of focus towards these swing states (Dotinga 192-196) rather equality for the smaller states. If federalism is inclusion of as many states as possible in decision making, this situation goes directly against the concept (Anderson 17-20). Proponents of maintaining the status quo on Electoral College argue that it is a good compromise between direct vote and voting through the Congress and helps to overcome emotional or “inflamed” decisions by public in a one-person-one-vote (Ross 117-119). The historic reality they overlook is that in the 18th century when this method of elections was devised as a compromise, the circumstances and conditions were quite different from what they are in the 21st century. At that time what we take for granted today was not imaginable such as black vote, women’s vote, the 18 year old voting age, and the pervasiveness of media and the Internet (Jefferson-Jenkins 173). Today the voter is much better informed about nationwide and even global issues compared to the 18th century and must be trusted. Additionally, the argument about emotional or inflamed opinion translating into election results is unreasonable. In a poll right after the ill fated 2000 elections, Gallup found more than 60% Americans favoring a direct election for the President’s office. The survey was conducted again in 2004 and no significant difference in public opinion was found (Carlson) showing it was the considered opinion of the American people and not an emotional decision. Finally, two other arguments relate to the importance of the winner-takes-all system and that of one-person-one-vote. In the Electoral College system, if one party gets a majority of votes in a state, the winner party takes all the elector votes. Any votes cast for losing party are no longer relevant and the importance of national one-person-one-vote ends right there. Supporters of status quo believe that there is no problem in this. They argue that this system delivers a majority decision just like any democracy would, despite being within one state and for electors and not for the presidential candidate. There is, however, an inherent issue with this approach. In the 2000 elections, Al Gore received over 500,000 more popular votes across the U.S. than George Bush but still lost because he had less Electoral College votes (Jefferson-Jenkins 179) because the state of Florida went to the Republicans. This could happen again in the current system. The voters effectively take part in a state election and not the national Presidential Elections. Additional popular votes count for nothing because they are never considered. The downside is that it discourages voting in many states. New York voters for both parties know the result is going to go for Democrats in the winner-takes-all system. Since they already know the expected result and also know that their vote is not going to be counted nationally, the voter turnout in New York or similarly one-sided states can be very low. Nebraska and Maine are the only states that do not have the winner-takes-all method. The state sends a number of electors proportionately based on popular vote (Davis 132-135). Therefore, though indirectly, voting has meaning and each person’s vote counts towards the cumulative national result. Conclusion The Electoral College method may have worked in the early years of American democracy in the 18th century but not so for the discerning voter of the 21st century. Today no democratic nation practices anything close to this system (Anderson 17-20). Opinion polls have shown that even Americans have rejected this method and want change. This desired change is not easy but can take place in two ways. One way is to reform the system by having all states agree to follow the proportionate elector model of Maine and Nebraska. The other choice is to abolish the Electoral College altogether and switch to nationwide popular vote for Presidential elections. This method would recognize that democracy today does not benefit from the archaic Electoral College and that the will of the people is better represented through popular vote. Works Cited Anderson, John B. "The Electoral College Weakens Federalism." The Presidential Election Process. Ed. Tom Lansford. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2011. Carlson, D.K. "Public Flunks Electoral College System." Gallup. Gallup, 2 Nov 2004. Web. 9 Mar 2011. . Davis, R. " The Electoral College Should Be Eliminated." Federal Elections. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies.Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2011. Dotinga, R. "The Electoral College Weakens Federalism." The Presidential Election Process. Ed. Tom Lansford. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2011 "How the Electoral College Functions." America.gov. U.S. Department of State, 3 Sep 2008. Web. 8 Mar 2011. . Jefferson-Jenkins, Carolyn “Who Should Elect the President? The Case Against the Electoral College”. National Civic Review. 90.2 (2001): 173-181. Electronic. Ross, T. "The Electoral College System Is a Brilliant Constitutional Device." Federal Elections. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies.Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2011. “What is the Electoral College?” United States National Archives and Records Administration. 1996. Web. 8 Mar 2011. . Read More