Should Electoral College Be Abolished Essay

Why the Electoral College Should be Abolished
Since the year 1789 our state has relied on the rule of a higher power. We call this power “Presidency” and it is the solid foundation that keeps the United States from collapsing. Citizens from all over have the right to vote for whom they wish to see as their next President. They are told their votes will support and help towards the candidates win, but it is much more complicated than a simple citizens vote. Since the first president George Washington was elected, there was also the creation of the Electoral College which is a special picked group of electors who formally cast votes towards the election as well. The Electoral College should be abolished because it is simply undemocratic, it

gives smaller states over representation, and it rebuffs third parties. This group of electors should no longer be a part of our voting rituals.
The population within our fifty states differs greatly. With California and Texas being the largest states in the U.S, one would think that we should acquire more of the popular vote, but that is not the case when it comes to electing a president. “A state's number of electors is tied to its number of Congressional representatives; one for each senator and one for each member of the House. Therefore, the changing population affects not only representation but also how many electoral votes a state has. A state can never have fewer than three electors.”(Doc. A) This quote from document A states that regardless of the population, we shall all acquire a minimum of three electoral votes to start. This is undemocratic in the way that the larger states get, theoretically, less than they are obtainable for. If the smaller states receive a portion of the larger states votes, it is basically giving away a citizen's vote to someone else in another state, making theirs not count. Another example of the electoral college being undemocratic is within document D which states, “The Electoral College violates political equality. It is not a neutral counting device...it favors some citizens over others, depending solely upon the state in which voters cast their votes for president…”(Doc. D). The chart below this statement shows a number to number ratio of the popular vote of the citizens versus the electoral vote. In 2010, Illinois had a popular vote of 12,830, 632 while DC and twelve plus states had a total popular vote of 12,500,722. By seeing these numbers, one would think the obvious winning votes would come from Illinois, but it turns out the electoral college votes only 20 for them and 44 for the DC and Twelve other states. This shows just how undemocratic the Electoral College truly is in how they choose to vote. One more example of the democraticness of the Electoral College is written in document G which shows the candidates from the years 1824-2000. In 1876, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Tilden were both in the running for future presidency. The popular vote came to be 4,036,572 for Hayes and 4,282,020 for Tilden. Therefore, the presidency should have been given to Mr. Tilden, but the electoral college voted 185 for Hayes and only 184 for Tilden therefore giving the win to whom they voted for rather than who the people wanted. (Doc G). This shows a huge example of the undemocratic ways of the electoral college and provides as strong argument as to why it should be abolished.
The electoral was created to help in the choice of our State's next ruler, but they also have the power to choose without having the popular votes opinion.

When citizens from different states begin to vote, those votes are not counted based on where they live population wise, but where they live state wise. If a person from, say, California votes for who they wish to be the next president, their vote doesn’t go towards who they are but rather where they are. In Document A, there is a map shown of the fifty states within the U.S. and split between the state is a horizontal and vertical line to represent how the Electoral College views the way we receive votes per state. “The changing population affects not only representation but also how many electoral votes a state has.” (Doc A). This proves that regardless of where a citizen of the U.S lives, their votes go straight from the state, not them as a person. Another example as to why the Electoral College should be abolished is held within document F which quotes, “... each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters.” (Doc F). Even though Wyoming has a smaller population than California by far, they would still be granted the same (or close to) amount of electoral votes that California has. This is a perfect example of how smaller states are overrepresented. One would think that with a larger population, there would be more votes, but regardless of population every state gets an equal starting amount and an even more equal selection of the votes overall. The final example of why the Electoral College should be abolished would be because of a statistic shown in document D. The smallest numbered state with popular votes is The District of Columbia with only 601,723, but they received 3 of the electoral votes.The largest state popular vote came from Idaho with 1,567,582

and they received 4 electoral votes. (Doc F). (These numbers do not include that of Illinois and DC + 12 Other States). Even with the massive gap of population votes, the electoral college still keeps their vote between the states roughly the same showing that the smaller states indeed have an over representation and this is why the Electoral College should be considered for abolishment.
The electoral college is suppose to help in the decision making of whom the next United States president should be. They would evaluate the top three candidates and vote based on the popular vote, as well as what they believe would be best choise. In document B there is a pie chart that shows the votes of the population versus the electoral. The three running candidates are shown but only two receive recognition from the Electoral College. In 1980 the running candidates were Reagan, Carter, and Anderson. All three had a pretty decent voting percentage from the popular votes, but showed to be unfair when it came to the electoral. Reagan having the highest of the three recieved a popular vote of 50.7% and Carter coming in second with 41%. The third candidate, Anderson, only had a 6.6% of the popular vote, which is still something, but received a 0% from the electoral college. (Doc B). The electoral college doesn’t seem to recognize the third party and shows to have no interest in them whatsoever. If a candidate is running and receives third highest with the popular vote, they are practically out of the game when it comes to whom the electoral college will vote for. “The abolition of state-by-state, winner-take-all electoral votes would speed the disintegration of the already weakened two-party system. It would encourage single-issue ideologues and eccentric millionaires to jump into presidential contests. The multiplication of splinter parties would make it hard for major-party candidates to win popular-vote majorities.” (Doc E). This quote written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. gives his opinion on the issue that third-party candidates seem to be unrecognized in the Electoral College vote. I believe that they Electoral College should be abolished in the near future because it gives unfair advantages to the top two candidates that received the most popular vote and seems to be ignoring the votes of the lowest ranked candidate.
Although there are many disadvantages to keeping the electoral college around there are also a few positive affects as to why it should stay apart of our voting system. Reasons for keeping the Electoral College in play would be because it is originally a part of the Framers Plan, it boosts the power of the smaller states, and it discourages the splinter parties and extremists. The Electoral College has been around for a long time and it has continued to make a difference in our state. In document C there is a quote written by Mitch McConnell that reads, “...our system is not designed to be simple and efficient. It is designed to promote good government and legislation that forwards the common good of a large and diverse nation. ...The electoral college has been the linchpin of American political prosperity. It has formed our political parties, moderated our more extreme elements, and forged the presidential campaigns that have given direction to our ship of state.” (Doc C). While this quote is indeed longer than others, it does explain quite well what the true invision for the Electoral College is and how our state's plan to use it. It reveals the true intention of what the Framers’ Plan ought to be. The second reason the electoral college could still be useful in our voting plans would be because it boosts the power of the smaller states. Even if it seems to be unfair, or undemocratic, the equality in voting amongst each state is greatly encouraged. If each state had an equal starting vote it would prevent the fighting or complaining that some states have an unfair advantage when it comes to whom they can vote for. If California received all of their “required” electoral votes, and went against a smaller state, say, New Hampshire, there would be a larger disadvantage for the smaller state. Even though document D writes to abolish this way of voting, it shows clear statistics as to what states receive what percentage of the electoral vote and they seem to all be very equal in numbers. The final reason for the electoral college to be kept is because it would discourage splinter parties and extremists. In document E, George Will writes, “...The system bolsters the two-party system by discouraging independent candidacies that splinter the electorate. It generated moderate mandates for parties that seek a broad consensus through and accommodations.” (Doc E). What Mr. Will is explaining is indeed the truth when it come to what the electoral college does and it gives a good example of why we should keep this form of voting in the United States for the rest of our years here.
In conclusion, I am still for the abolishment of the Electoral College in the United States of America because it is simply undemocratic, it gives too much representation to the smaller states than need be, and it seems to ignore the third party candidates as a whole. The Electoral College has been a way of voting in our country for quite some time. It may have worked back then, but I believe it is time for a change in the way our citizens vote. There should be a direct vote and if the electors still have to vote, I wish that someday they would realize that they should rely more on what the citizens what rather than what they want. The Electoral College should be abolished as soon as our state allows it.