Electoral College According to Tim

Electoral College

According to Tim Mak of Politico a recent gallop pole revealed that Americans want to do away with the Electoral College by a margin of 2 to 1. Additionally for the first time a majority of Republicans support a constitutional amendment that would make the winner of the presidential race contingent on the results of the popular vote. Of those polled 62% favored an amendment while only 35% supported keeping the status quo. Gallop first conducted a poll of this type in 1967. At the time 58% of the respondents were in favor of the change.

In 2000 the survey was administered again with different wording than previously. At the time the election hinged on Florida's 25 electoral votes, and Democrat Al Gore, despite winning a majority of the popular vote, would later be ruled to have lost the state's electoral votes and the presidency. In 2000 only 41% of Republicans supported replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote; however in this most recent survey that number jumped to 53%. Democrats have favored the replacement of the Electoral College by a margin of over 70% for more than the last decade. This poll was conducted October 6 -- 9, 2011 with a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

The Electoral College was established in the original Constitution of the United States of America in 1787. The presidential electors meet after the citizen's vote for the president and vice president. Each state is granted the same number of electors as it has senators and representatives combined. These electors, rather than the public, actually elect the president and the vice president. The Founding Fathers assumed that electors would exercise discretion and not necessarily be bound by the popular vote, but the rise of political parties undermined this assumption. Electors are now pledged in advance to vote for the candidate of their party, and nearly always do so. Thus, the actual vote of the Electoral College is largely a formality.

The relatively recent election of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election, where Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but won enough support in the Electoral College to become president has brought this issue to the surface again. Supporters of the current system claim it allows small states and small town America to have a say in the election. The candidates go to every corner of the battleground states and many people get the opportunity to meet and question them. Many feel that is a major benefit of the Electoral College. Another benefit many see is that it gives the winning candidate the majority of the vote. In the 1992 election Bill Clinton only received around 42% of the vote. However, due to the influence of Ross Perot he still won a convincing majority in the Electoral College. There is some benefit to winning a majority: the perception of 2/3 of the country not electing the president might be detrimental. Furthermore, it avoids the possibility of a nationwide recount. One can only imagine the result if the debacle in Florida in 2000 was repeated on a national level. Supporters contend that the current system does a better job representing the country as a whole. Some of the larger states leaning in one direction could completely over power a large portion of the country. The Electoral College provides some balance to this.