Should the Electoral College Be Abolished? Pros & Cons

Introduction

The Electoral College system for electing the President was widely examined and often criticized following the November 2000 election. Twice in recent history, the country has faced the possibility that a presidential candidate would win most of the popular vote and yet lose in the Electoral College. The Electoral College interferes with the individual voter's opportunity to express a preference for one candidate over another, because only the Electoral College votes ultimately count.

We often say we have a democratic government, but in reality, we have a largely federalist government. While we use direct votes to elect members of Congress, we use the Electoral College to choose our highest elected official — the President. Each state has a certain number of members in the Electoral College, and with rare exceptions, all Electoral College votes for one state go to the candidate who received the majority of votes in that state. The number of electoral votes equals the number of Representatives and Senators combined. Thus, the distribution of electoral votes has shifted over time as the population of the country has shifted. Each time congressional seats are redistributed, it is possible that some states will gain or lose electoral votes.

The issue of states' versus federal power has been an important one since the United States was first founded. At that time, the smaller and more agricultural states wanted to join the union but did not want to be perpetually dominated by the more populous states. Dividing power so that some was based on population and some was distributed equally to each state was the final compromise (Glassmann, 2001; National Review, 2000). That compromise was necessary at the time. Colonists had previously held two allegiances: one to Great Britain and one to their colony. While they could see the need to unite in order to gain strength — since none of them could stand against the British alone — they wanted to retain some independence for each colony.

Historical Origins and Federalist Compromise

Historically, states' rights have been an important issue. Until the compromise that led to the Electoral College, the founders had a difficult time pulling the colonies together to form a new country. It was also an important issue leading up to the Civil War. However, the idea seems dated today. While people take pride in naming the state they are from, for the average voter, most citizens' patriotism is focused on their country rather than the state in which they live.

The criticism made most often about the Electoral College is that it does not always reflect "the will of the people" (Samples, 2001). This has been a particular concern in the elections of 1960 and 2000 (Glassmann, 2001). In both cases, the winning presidents were elected by a very narrow popular margin. When that happens, people tend to worry that a presidential candidate might someday win most of the popular vote and yet lose in the Electoral College. However, this outcome has never actually occurred.

Glassmann (2001) argues that the Electoral College makes voters in smaller states more important. He notes that both Bush and Gore spent a significant amount of time campaigning in West Virginia and Delaware. Their Electoral College votes held more significance than the popular votes would have, because a win in those states awarded the candidate all of the state's electoral votes, rather than a proportion corresponding to the number who voted for that candidate.

Criticism and Defense of the Electoral College

In addition, the Electoral College concentrates power within the two major political parties, making it much harder for any third-party candidate to be elected. It also reduces the likelihood that a presidential election will be decided in the House of Representatives. This last scenario occurred in 1824, and the resulting deal-making among congressmen cast a shadow of corruption over the process (Glassmann, 2001). Nevertheless, such an outcome would also represent the democratic process at work and would ultimately reflect the will of the voters.

The negative aspect of the winner-take-all system, as Glassmann points out, is that larger states received less campaign attention than their population size would predict. In the 2000 election, Bush paid little attention to New York, believing he could not carry the state, and that his minority of votes there would be completely lost when all the state's Electoral College votes went to Gore. For the same reason, Gore paid little attention to Texas (Glassmann, 2001). This seems to fly in the face of democracy. If every vote cast counted for every candidate, candidates would have reason to reach out to all voters rather than treating states as prepackaged blocs.

Some 75 million eligible voters did not vote in the presidential election. Democrats in strongly Republican states, and Republicans in strongly Democratic states, may feel that their vote does not count. Reforming the system could ease that problem and encourage broader participation.

Some critics remain concerned about the effects of the Electoral College on voters in larger states. Maine and Nebraska have adopted a unique approach to working within the Electoral College system (Glassmann, 2001; Samples, 2001). Under this method, two electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the majority statewide — corresponding to each state's two senators. However, the remaining Electoral College votes, which correspond to the number of Representatives, are awarded according to the results in each individual congressional district. So if a state had ten Electoral College votes and the majority of statewide voters chose the Republican candidate, that candidate would receive two Electoral College votes for the two senators. If five congressional districts had majority votes for the Republican candidate and three for the Democratic candidate, a total of seven votes would go to the Republican and three to the Democrat.

Conclusion

Samples, John. "Lessons of the 2000 Election." USA Today. May 2001.