The US Presidential Electoral System - Essay Example

The US Presidential Electoral System The United States electoral college system is the method that is used to translate the individual votes for a candidate into votes for the office of the presidency. While the system of electoral votes generally reflects the national will, it has the capacity to elect a president with a minority of the popular votes. Since its inception at the birth of our constitutional government, the electoral college has been an issue that has been widely debated. While some see it as a stabilizing force in our two party system, others see it as a vehicle that promotes unfair spending and inappropriate voter pandering. Intuition will tell us that in a democracy the popular vote should be the all important component in the presidential election. Yet, the popular vote can bring the risk of chaos and splintered political parties. The US electoral system is in need of reform, and simple popular vote would be a move towards eliminating the current system's inadequacies. The electoral college system of electing a president uses a system where each state has a number of electoral delegates that are equal to the number of the members of the House of Representatives plus two. The voters then vote for a bloc of delegates that represent the individual candidates. After the election, the delegates cast their electoral vote and the winner is decided. This system was necessitated at the birth of the nation when counting a national popular vote was impractical. In addition, it protected the government offices from being decided by an ill-informed electorate. Though it is generally an adequate reflection of the voters' preference, it has several weaknesses. One weakness in the electoral college, that a popular vote system would rectify, is the unequal distribution of voter power. Under the current system, the number of electoral votes is equal to the number of House members plus two. Since the number of House members is based on population, this gives an advantage to the smaller states (Bennett 3). Voters in the least populated states have more power with their individual votes than the voters in the larger states do. In addition, since the apportionment of electoral votes is based on the census, it is always out of date, sometimes by as much as 10 years (Edwards 2). A popular vote system would alleviate both of these problems and accurately reflect the population on an equal basis. Individual voter power is further hampered when the minority (loser) in the large states are awarded no electoral delegates at all. Leib and Mark state that, "Minority voters in large non-swing states—say Republicans today in California or New York, as well as Democrats in Texas—have the most reason to be upset with the current method of awarding electoral votes" (106). Uneven apportionment, out of date census data, and no minority voice creates an unjust system of voter unfairness. One of the purposes of an electoral system is to facilitate and encourage voter participation. When voters feel like their vote is of little or no value, they will be discouraged from participating in the process. As an example, Indiana has traditionally voted overwhelmingly for the Republican presidential candidate in the last several elections. Though Democrats make up as much as 40 percent of the vote, their votes have not been counted for years. For all practical purposes, they have no reason to vote for a candidate that can not carry the state. "These disincentives essentially take the form of reducing the perceived benefits of voting for a Presidential candidate by restricting the power of votes to state jurisdictions rather than allowing all votes equal value (power) in a national election determined strictly by a popular vote" (Cebula and Murphy 188). Reforming the electoral college to reflect a more equitable system of voter power would encourage greater voter participation. Moving to a popular vote system would not only more fairly represent the voters, it would also reduce the special favor spending projects that are awarded to some states, and local districts, under the electoral system. The electoral college system also has the propensity to cater to the special interest groups within each individual state. For example, senior citizens in Florida may receive greater federal attention that the more minority interests in that state. This marginalizes the importance of the minority interest voter in Florida. In large states, such as California, the electoral vote may hinge on concentrated population areas. This would potentially give a suburb of Los Angeles more voter power than the entire state of Wyoming. A presidential candidate could offer a bridge, highway, or defense plant to a local district in return for the small number of votes it takes to carry California, while Wyoming voters go without. Though voters may be unaware of the ratio of tax dollars sent to Washington and tax dollars received, "…the product of those federal dollars—public works projects, military bases, salaries and wages, and even retirement and disability income—are readily observable" (Hoover Institution 2,3). Lizzeri and Persico argue that, "the electoral college generates a more unequal distribution of resources and less efficient provision of global public goods" (227). This aberration of voter preference is even more pronounced in the swing states, where a public works project could tip the election scale. In 2004 there were 10 states, known as swing states, where the presidential contest was hotly contested. These 10 states, though having a minority of the population or electoral votes, decided the election. With the advent of the concept of Red States and Blue States, the candidates are vying for the state, not the voters. While there is some debate on which states benefit the most, "The clearest winners are “swing” states which get almost all the attention from presidential candidates" (Bennett 3). The electoral system clearly defines important pockets of voters that the candidates must pander to if they want to be successful. Meanwhile, states that are dedicated Democrat or Republican strongholds are ignored, even though they are the candidate's biggest supporters. A popular vote system would less sharply define areas of extreme voter power, as a single vote in a Red State would be just as valuable as a single vote in a swing state. A risk that is inherent in the electoral delegate system is the potential for abuse if the delegates decide to defect soon after the election. According to Burdette, "Pledged electors generally have been regarded as legally free to cast their votes as they choose, and there have been cases of defection from pledged positions. No such deviation has had a clear effect on an election result, but the possibility raises an additional objection to the electoral college". In a close election, a handful of delegates could defect to the minority party and legally award the presidency to the losing candidate. While this is a small risk of the electoral college system, it is nonetheless real and should be accounted for in our voting process. Creating a healthier democracy through electoral reform demands that the reforms do not do more harm than good. While there is much to criticize about the electoral college system, it does provide for a stable two-party system. The current system, where the states are winner take all, virtually eliminates any realistic opportunity for third or minority parties. Instead, these factions are forced to work within the majority parties through coalitions. Under a popular vote system, new parties may emerge that challenge the major parties for a portion of the popular vote. This could lead to party splintering, or the unwillingness to form coalitions. The result would be a chaotic government where presidential ballots would list several candidates. In a four party race, it could be possible for the winner to win with less than 26 percent of the vote. While the current system holds the potential that the loser in the popular vote can win the electoral vote, in a multi-party system the problem becomes even more pronounced. One suggestion to help reduce this effect is awarding the electoral votes by district, rather than by state (Leib and Mark 108). This is a more proportional representative method that would more clearly reflect the will of the voters. In conclusion, the electoral college that has been a part of US elections since its beginning has become outdated and is in need of reform. While a popular vote system would insure equality of voter power, it has the potential to deteriorate our stable two party system. A popular vote system could generate candidates that run on extreme or single issue platforms, and eliminate the need to form the compromising coalitions that have characterized our federal system. Creating a healthier democracy through electoral reform may require that we adopt a system somewhere between the electoral college and the popular vote. There is no doubt that the current system gives undue power to some states and local districts, while ignoring the needs of others. Large states disregard the millions of voters that voted for the losing candidate. The US is in need of election reform, and moving towards a popular vote is a step in the direction of voter equality. Works Cited Bennett, Robert. Public Law and Legal Theory Papers. 45th ed. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University School of Law, 2006. Burdette, Franklin L. "Electoral College." Encyclopedia Americana. 2006. 22 Apr. 2008 . Cebula, Richard J., and Dennis R. Murphy. "The Electoral College and voter participation rates." Public Choice 35 (1980): 185-90. Edwards III, George C. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. Hoover Institution. A Curious Paradox of the Red States and Blue States: Federal Spending and Electoral Votes in the 2000 Election. Dean Lacy. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2002. Leib, Ethan J., and Eli J. Mark. "Democratic Principle and Electoral College Reform." Michigan Law Review 106 (2008): 105-09. Read More