Three Arguments Against the Electoral Collage
1. The electoral college restricts the freedoms of American citizens.
The freedoms of the American people have been restricted for years. And the question at hand is should the American government be able to limit our voting power with something that was created at a time when it was difficult for people to vote? Back in the day the public had a hard time finding out about the presidential candidates and most people were not educated. So in efforts to keep the country going the electoral college was created. This group of electors decides the fate for the whole nation. This makes the popular vote of the American people meaningless. The people vote for someone thinking that the person that they are voting for will become the president. But it is not up to the public instead it is up to the electoral college. Is this fair to the citizens of our country? Should the fate of our nation rest on the shoulders of the electoral college? This is for America as a nation to decide. Another reason for its creation is Southerners didn’t want slaves to be included in a direct vote. |
2. The electoral college is considered unconstitutional.
It has been said many times that the electoral college is unconstitutional. In fact, if the Electoral College system wasn’t in the Constitution, it would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional because the apportionment of electoral votes violates the principle of one-person, one-vote (Levy). The framers of the Constitution didn’t foresee how the modern world of national political parties, national media, and without presidential candidates begging for votes. The framers could see a way for there to be a national election after Washington left the office. With this frame of mind of being leery of too much democracy lead to the electoral college. Presidential electors to solve the problem of having no one voting or knowing anything about the presidential candidates. In modern eyes the solution would be simple let the people vote in a national election, but this concept was unimaginable. Framers never thought about tickets, political parties, campaign finance, or TV ads. There are polls for years that have shown a great majority would prefer just a straightforward vote for the presidential election. Without a constitutional amendment this will never happen; however, if the states pass a law pledging all of the electoral votes to the winning national candidate. Nine states including California have this law. This accounts for 132 electoral votes almost half of 270 needed to win the presidential election (Commentary: Why the Electoral College System Makes Little Sense Today). |
3. The electoral college goes against our government’s core democratic governmental ideals.
The electoral college goes against our government’s core democratic ideals. There is no real doubt about how the electors will vote, but it is disturbing that they have any role at all in making this vital choice in the 21st century. The Electoral College is more than just an antiquated institution: It actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president. American democracy would be far stronger without it. Another problem is that one would think that either party that benefited might have little interest in pursuing reforms of an institution that awarded them the presidency. Although the purpose of the electoral college may have been understandable in 1787, it is now an undemocratic but still-extant relic of history. In other countries, presidents are elected by national popular vote, and these countries have adopted varying methods to ensure that the elected president has some minimum threshold of support. For example, in Costa Rica a candidate must win at least 40% of the vote in a first round to stave off a second round, and in France a candidate must win a majority to avoid a runoff (Levy). |
Written and Edited by: Sabrina Hoffman and Lexi Hunsberger