Creation and Effectiveness of Electoral College - Essay Example

assignment is due: Electoral College Introduction An electoral college refers to a set of electors who are selected to elect a candidate to a particular office. The electors represent different entities with each entity being represented by a certain number of electors or with votes weighted a particular way. In many cases, the members of an electoral college are simply people whose wisdom would provide a better and informed choice than a larger body (Longley and Pierce 12-17). It is fallacious that the Electoral College system begun with the United States of America (Moore 254-256). The Germanic law applied the Electoral College system in the election of the German king whereby the king only ruled with the support of his nobles. Pelayo was elected by his Visigothic nobles before becoming king of Asturias and Pepin the Sort was also elected by his Frankish nobles so as to become the first Carolingian king (Wedgewood 29-36). In the Holy Roman Empire, the King of the Romans was selected by the college of prince electors from the late Middle Ages until 1792 when the last election took place (Wedgewood 29-36). The Church in the West left electoral power exclusively to the College of Canons of the Cathedral Church. In the case of the Pope, selection is left to the exclusive authority of the College of Cardinals since 1059. Currently, the United States of America is the best illustration of a society that uses the Electoral College System to indirectly elect the president and the vice president (Sabato 20-35). Creation of the Electoral College Framers of the Unites States’ Constitution devised the Electoral College as procedure to indirectly elect the president by the people. The Constitutional Convention came up with so various methods of selecting the president which included selection of the president by the Congress; selection of the president by the State Legislature; selection of the president through direct popular vote (Kolodny 45-65). These procedures were rejected for various reasons such as threats of power bargaining and corruption (Longley and Pierce 12-17). Finally, the convention settled for the indirect method of election of the president through the Electoral College and this procedure was stipulated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States (Kolodny 45-65). The article on the Electoral College has undergone several amendments in 1880, 1804 (12th Amendment) and in 1876. The last amendment to the Electoral College was made through the 23rd Amendment which gave the District of Columbia the right to vote for three electors just as the residents of other states (Kolodny 45-65). The Electoral College comprises of 538 electors with 535 accounting for the total Congressional members and 3 who represent Washington (District of Columbia) as stipulated in the 23rd Amendment (Trenton B5). The 12th Amendment allows each elector to cast one vote for president and one for vice president. The electors of each state meet in their state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. The cast votes are then packed and sent to the president of the senate who opens and reads them on January 6 in presence of both houses and the winner is sworn into the office at the noon of January 20 (Longley and Pierce 12-17). The electors usually cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their states but in some instances, the electors have voted contrary to the people’s decision and this is allowed by the law (Sabato 20-35). Politicians, activists and other interest groups react to this system with mixed reactions. Some believe that a purely popular election is too reckless while others are objected to giving the United States Congress power to select the president (Sabato 20-35). The effectiveness and controversy behind the Electoral College lies with its pros and cons which are clearly described below. Effectiveness of the Electoral College Proponents of the Electoral College claim that the system helps maintain the federal character of the United States (Longley and Pierce 12-17). They argue that the collective opinion of even a smaller state merits attention at the federal level greater than the attention given to a small, though numerically equivalent, portion of a very populous state (Trenton B5). This enhances the attention given to small states that are lightly populated and it also strengthens the role of the state. The Electoral College System also allows each state the freedom to design its own laws on voting and this enhances the states’ freedom in enfranchisement. The system neutralizes voter turnout disparities between states which are caused by poor varying weather conditions and nature of contest (Sabato 20-35). Moreover, by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing issue, minority groups provide a critical edge that allows a candidate to win and this compels the candidates to court wide variety of such minority groups (Trenton B5). For instance, the system prevents a candidate from winning the presidency by simply winning in densely populated urban areas and creates an opportunity for the attention of the minor rural areas. This enhances the status of minority groups. The system also isolates the impact of any election problem and if this occurs, it is restricted to the state (Longley and Pierce 12-17). For example, it prevents instances where a party that is dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for the candidate so as to conveniently influence the outcome of the election. If there is a recount, it will only be conducted on the basis of state by state rather than nationwide. Moreover, stability is enhanced through the two party systems due to its ability to change during rapid political and cultural change (Sabato 20-35). Controversy of the Electoral College The Electoral College compromises the national popular vote. The elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000 produced presidents who did not receive majority of votes in the country. Opponents of the system claim that it does not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function (Trenton B5). Most states use the winner-take-all system whereby, the candidate with the majority of votes is selected by the state’s electors. This can translate to election of a minority president (Longley and Pierce 12-17). Outcomes of a minority president are as a result of the federal nature of the system. The result of the current Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal and factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. The mechanism renders popular vote irrelevant and as such, candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College which undermines the democratic process. Most states use the winner-take-all system whereby, the candidate with the majority of votes is selected by the state’s electors. In such scenarios, candidates are given the incentive to concentrate most of their attention to states that have no clear favorite (Sabato 20-35). It is possible for on to win by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country (Trenton B5). In the 2000 and 2004 elections, eleven states including Florida and New York gave 111 vote to Republican candidate George Bush and 160 votes to Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. The adoption of the popular simply shift focus to large cities at the expense of the rural areas. The system also discourages voter turnout and participation. It does not matter how many voters turn out to vote except in the few closely fought swings (Longley and Pierce 12-17). The system eliminates the possibility of candidates encouraging voters to come out and vote in the less contested areas (Trenton B5). In fact, voter turn suggests major differences between swing states and non swing states. If the election was a direct populous vote method, political parties and their candidate would have a natural incentive of encouraging the voters to go out and vote in the whole country. Conclusion The Electoral College does not give a chance to the people of the United States to decide on who the president is but a small group of people because, as seen in the discussion above and in the history of the country, the winner of the popular vote may not win the presidency. And yet the United States of America is the world leader in advocacy for democracy. Does the government of the United States of America preach water and drink wine? The government of the United States is therefore compelled to exercise democracy by allowing for direct election of the president by the people themselves since this the main tenet of democracy that the country claims to uphold. Works Cited Kolodny, R. The Several Elections of 1824: Congress and the Presidency. American University, Washington D.C., 1996: 45-65. Longley, D and Pierce, R. The Electoral College Primer 2000. Yale University Press, 1999:12-17. Moore, L., ed. Congressional Quarterlys Guide to U.S. Elections. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C., 1985: 254-256. Sabato, L. A More Perfect Constitution. Walker Publishing Company, 2007: 20-35. Trenton. “State Backs Electoral College Change". New York Times 14 January. 2008: B5. Wedgewood, C. The Thirty Years War. Anchor Books, 1961: 29-36 Read More