The Electoral College System - Coursework Example

The Electoral College The United s presidential elections follow the Electoral College system to elect the president and the Vice president. The Electoral College is comprised of electors chosen by citizens from their respective states to represent the state in electing the preferred president. In United States, the Electoral College is comprised of 538 electors. The electors cast a single vote to the preferred presidential candidate; the candidate receiving a majority of the votes emerges the elected president. Therefore, US citizens do not vote directly for their preferred presidential candidates, but rather select electors who will represent them in electing the president (Henry 4). The Electoral College system came into place through Article II of the constitution. Its establishment was necessitated by the poor communication and transport networks in the 18th century. In addition to this, the US had a sparse population, which made it difficult for the majority of US citizens to have knowledge on candidates running for federal office. Candidates had a difficult time doing their campaigns. In order to overcome these difficulties, electors were selected and sent to Washington to learn about potential presidential candidates. The electors were allowed to deliberate and make a decision on the preferred presidential candidate on behalf of other state members (Hewson 13). The US founding fathers were also concerned about power balance in US since a presidential candidate elected by the citizens would become hugely popular. Today, each state in the US receives a number of electors equal to the number members in the US House of Representatives. The sates also get one additional elector for each of their two US Senators. Therefore, for a presidential candidate to be declared a winner, he/she must get more than 270 votes. States with high populations of people usually get a large number of Electoral College votes (Hewson 9). In situations where none of the presidential candidates gets 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives selects the president using the 12th amendment. In this case, representatives from each state are combined to make one vote. Any support from a simple majority of states makes a presidential candidate to be declared the winner. However, situations that require the decision of the House of Representative are extremely rare in US presidential election history and have only been used twice; during the 1801 and 1825 presidential elections (Burgan 11). Despite the fact that electors have the responsibility to vote for the candidate running on the party that elected them, it is necessary to note that nothing in the US constitution requires the electors to a bind this requirement. In rare occasions, electors may act against the wishes of their state citizens, but some states require such electors not to cast their votes (Edwards 21). Shortcomings of the Electoral College The use of the Electoral College has received a lot of criticism from different people for many years. These include lack of political parties as well as poor transport and communication networks (Bennett 17). The use of Electoral College system is considered by many as a voting process that denies the US citizens the right to elect their preferred presidential candidates directly. Although votes cast by the US citizens (popular votes) elect the president indirectly through the Electoral College, the wish of the US citizens may fail to turn into reality. It is always the expectation of many that candidates with the highest number of popular votes will emerge winners when electors cast their votes, but this has failed to occur in a number of occasions (Edwards 15). In the 1876 US presidential elections, a total of 369 electoral votes were available, and only 185 votes were needed for a candidate to be declared a winner. The republican candidate, Rutherford Hayes, with 185 electoral votes and 4,036,298 popular votes, emerged the winner beating Democrat Samuel Tilden who had 184 electoral votes and 4,300,590 popular votes (Henry 93). The other scenario is during the 1888 presidential elections where 401 electoral votes were available, and 201 were required to declare a winner. The republican presidential candidate, Benjamin Harrison, emerged the winner after getting 233 electoral votes and 5,439,853 popular votes beating Democrat candidate, Grover Cleveland, who had 168 electoral votes and 5,540,309 popular votes (Henry 97). The most recent incident was in 2000 when George W. Bush became the US president. During the 2000 US presidential elections, 538 electoral votes were available, and 270 votes were needed to declare a winner. The Republican candidate, George Bush, gathered 271 electoral votes and 50,456,002 popular votes to beat Democrat candidate, Al Gore, who had 50,999,897 popular votes and 266 electoral votes. The three scenarios clearly indicate situations where the Electoral College system has violated the wish and election rights of the US citizens (Bennett 64). In the US, there are states referred to as swing states. These are the states that lack a single dominant political party capable of winning during any particular presidential election (Edwards 28). The emergence of the swing states is as a result of the Electoral College system of electing the US president. In the US presidential election history, swing states can be regarded as highly critical in determining the winner of the presidential elections. Over years, it has emerged that for any Republican presidential candidate to emerge the winner, the candidate must win the state of Ohio. The Republican candidates who have so far won the US presidency have not done so without winning the state of Ohio (Edwards 30). This phenomenon brings a state of inequality during the US presidential campaigns because presidential candidates spend more than ninety nine percent of their campaign resources in the swing states (Edwards 32). This simply implies that less than 1% of the campaign resources are spent on non-swing states, and yet these states benefit less from campaign resources. People find it to be unfair when presidential candidates heavily campaign in some states at the expense of others in order to win the US presidency. This discourages people from non swing states from turning up for the elections; this can be evidenced by the 2000 presidential elections. In the 2000 presidential elections, the swing states produced seventy percent voter turnout while the non swing states had fifty percent voter turnout (Edwards 35). The lack of a constitutional requirement that any selected elector must vote to the presidential candidate who is preferred by his/her state citizens raises some issues of concern. In several occasions, faithless electors have betrayed the will and wish of their state citizens by voting for presidential candidates not preferred by the people they represent (Hewson 81). In 2000 presidential elections, Dan Pierce, an Electoral College elector from Illinois, declared that he supported Al Gore instead of George Bush who was the choice of the people of Illinois. Another concern is on the selection of electors. Critics say that the public lacks the knowledge on how the selection of electors goes on; most electors are selected based on a person’s loyalty to his/her party (Hewson 84). The Electoral College system is also criticized for making it impossible for a presidential candidate from other unpopular parties to win the presidential elections. It is criticized for trying to enforce a two party structure at the expense of other political parties (Henry 56). This occurs because people in power do not want the presidential elections to be determined by the House of Representatives. Candidates running on third party tickets are seen as spoilers rather than serious presidential candidates. In US history, the only presidential candidates from a third party to have ever received significant support from electors were George Wallace and Ross Perot during the 1968 and 1992 US presidential elections. Ross Perot was favoured by his ability to invest many dollars in his campaign, but still failed to win the 1992 US presidential elections (Henry 60). In situations where the Electoral College fails to produce a presidential winner, the presidency is determined by the House of Representatives, Senate, and the Supreme Court. This process is referred to as the Contingent Election, and it allows the House of Representatives and the Senate to select the president and the vice president from the top three candidates (Edwards 72). Each state has one vote; for any candidate to emerge the winner, he must get a majority vote and the runner up takes the vice presidency. Critics point out that Contingent Elections fail to exercise the US citizens will and wish in the presidential elections. Therefore, conducting a voting exercise loses meaning because, by the end of the voting process, US citizens will have demonstrated minimum impact in electing their new president (Edwards 73). The Electoral College has further promoted the development of political parties that are private and independent organisations, which do not form part of the legal government system. This gives the political parties full control of their operations and may end up violating US citizens’ freedom of exercising their political right. The most common questions asked by many people are whether the Electoral College functions to protect the rights of the minority. The other concern is whether the Electoral College is a system with the potential to cause a serious constitutional crisis. Numerous calls have been made advocating for constitutional amendments to introduce the popular voting system (Burgan 54). Potential Replacement Ideas Many ideas have been proposed on the best way forward to replace the Electoral College system. The commonly proposed ideas are direct election plan, proportional plan, automatic plan, popular vote with runoff elections, and district plan (Bennett 43). The direct election plan is the most preferred system by the majority of US citizens; it gives them a chance to elect their preferred presidential candidate directly. Under this electoral system, the candidate with the majority of popular votes emerges the winner. Under well laid mechanisms, the direct election plan reduces election frauds and all citizens exercise their right in the election process (Bennett 46). The popular vote with runoff election is similar to the direct election plan except that there is always a runoff between the top two candidates after the first round of elections. This electoral system is effective in ending politics highly dominated by two parties as evident in the US today. The system is also suitable in electing a candidate widely accepted by the US citizens; however, that it cannot eliminate the split vote problem entirely (Hewson 35). The proportional plan, on the other hand, advocates for few changes on some of the concepts present in the Electoral College. The proportional plan proposes changes that will allow states to spread Electoral College votes to different candidates in a proportional manner. In order for a candidate to be declared the presidential winner, he must gain forty percent of the votes. The plan is much fairer compared to the Electoral College system (Edwards 27). The Automatic plan is the other plan, which advocates for the retention of the Electoral College without involving the Electors. This plan talks of a system solely responsible for electing the presidential candidate who has won the popular vote; this is contrary to having faithless electors who will end up betraying their state’s citizen’s wish. Therefore, members in the Electoral College automatically approve the candidate their state citizens have approved. The district plan also retains aspects of the Electoral College, but it requires the process to be done at the district level (Bennett 63). Conclusion Amending the US constitution to abolish the Electoral College system has failed due to lack of a balance of power between different states. States that consider the Electoral College of substantial benefit to them oppose its abolishment. There is always a perception that US citizens living in small states are the key beneficiaries of the Electoral College. However, the reality is that people from large states are the key beneficiaries. Those criticizing the Electoral College claim that it will still remain in place because people with the potential to end it have tasted its immense benefits, which are not for all US citizens. Therefore, the Electoral College will continue to make the US look stupid to the entire world, especially when American claim to be the stronghold of democracy. Works Cited Bennett, Robert. Taming the Electoral College. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. Print. Burgan, Michael. The Electoral College. New York: Compass Point Books, 2007. Print. Edwards, George. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. London: Yale University Press, 2005. Print. Henry, Christopher. The Electoral College. New York: Scholastic Library Pub, 1996. Print. Hewson, Martha. The Electoral College. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2002. Print. Read More