Despite the 2000 election result, the Electoral College does have its advantages. The founding fathers always wanted to preserve federalism, and the Electoral College does this. The powers of states are protected and smaller states especially. Small states fear a change in the current College system would see them become irrelevant and worthless, due to the huge size of other states, such as Texas, Florida and California. Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming all have 3 ECV’s, whereas California has 55 ECV’s in the 2004 election. This shows the stark contrast in population, and therefore representation, but due to this system, it allows smaller states to have a say and an importance in the outcome.
Another of the Colleges advantages is that it tends to promote a two horse race, and subsequently usually giving a majority, which is needed to win. By gaining over 50% of the popular vote allows the country to unite over the President – the figurehead of the country, in the political and social sense. In 2/3’s of the Presidential elections taken place, the winner has gained over 50%, and therefore a majority. But, in the past 3 elections, this has not been the case, causing some controversy. In the forthcoming Presidential election, the result is close to call, and either candidate could gain a majority of the popular vote, but as I have mentioned earlier, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they will win the Presidency.
The Electoral College seems to be working at the moment, and why should you fix something that isn’t broken? Even with the horror and outrage over the disputed election in 2000, in which George W. Bush won, despite fewer votes than Al Gore, the shock died down very quickly following Bush’s inauguration, especially after 9/11.
Despite these advantage, weaknesses are also apparent. The over- representation of states is clear amongst the smaller states. Wyoming has 3 ECV’s for its population of 500,000, which is 1 ECV for every 165,000 people. California, on the other hand, has 1 ECV per 617,000 inhabitants. This disproportionate way of the system gives smaller states a greater say than the deserve, or bigger states get less ECV’s than they should.
The winner takes all system has been criticised for distorting the result of elections. As the Electoral College system isn’t a representative institute, as a candidate can get the popular vote without actually winning the Presidency, it has distorted the results of many elections. The 1824, 1876, 1888 and the most recent 2000 election has left the winner of the popular vote without the honour of becoming president. And, the College can also distort results by seriously allowing giving a candidate more than they deserve. In 1996, Bill Clinton won 49% of the popular vote, but gained 70% of ECV’s.
Another disadvantage of the Electoral College system is the unfairness it gives to third parties. Despite them having practically no chance of a victory, they don’t even have a real chance of receiving ECV’s. In 1992, Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote, but won no ECV’s. If the Electoral College was to be reformed in a representative way, he could have changed the result of that election, with Bill Clinton maybe not coming to power.
Faithless electors have also been an issue of debate for the reform of the Electoral College. Due to the electors not having to vote for the majority in a state, it has led to 6 out of the past 11 elections to have had ‘rogue’ voters. This happened in 2000 when a Washington D.C elector leaving her ballot blank due to a protest at the states congressional representation.
Another criticism of the College is the fact that a President and Vice-President could be elected from the two major parties, causing an undesirable situation. This has never happened before, but if a candidate didn’t win an outright majority, the two houses of congress vote for each position separately, which could lead to the President being a Republican and the Vice-President being a Democrat.
There have been calls to reform the Electoral College for a more representative or proportionate system. The Maine System is one idea put forward, as it is used in this state instead of the winner takes all system. This proposal gives a vote to a candidate for each congressional district they win in a state, and then an extra two votes to the candidate that wins the state overall. This system also has its criticisms, as it can also be disproportionate. If this was used in the 2000 election, Al Gore (who won the popular vote), still would have lost, but instead of by 4 ECV’s, it would have been 34 ECV’s.
Another proposal is to use a direct proportionate system, where a candidate receives ECV’s in proportion to the popular vote. This would create huge problems though, as it would be hard for a candidate to win the Presidency as they need a majority to fulfil the position. This idea would allow third parties to have a greater impact, but it would still make it hard for the person with the popular vote to gain an absolute majority.
The Automatic Plan is another option, but this would only deal with one Electoral College weakness, the ‘rogue’ electors. This idea is where electors would no longer be needed and the allocations of votes are purely automatically. Sixteen states have laws that require electors to cast their ballots for the sate winner. This wasn’t the case in the District of Columbia, where the law is enforced, as an elector abstained from voting in 2000.
A directly appointed President has been proposed as the Direct Election plan, but this has its drawbacks. Many say that it would lead to huge recounts in every state, and it would require a constitutional amendment, which on controversial issues, is hard to change.
To actually reform the current Electoral System would be a long and tiring process. It would require a constitutional reform, which is hard to achieve as smaller states favour the current system as it gives them a greater say than they might actually deserve. This factor has a huge importance on the decision of changing the Electoral College system. To achieve a constitutional amendment, 2/3’s of the states need to agree, but this would seem unlikely. Also, due to the fact George W. Bush and the Republicans came to power in 2000 due to the Electoral College system, it seems they would be reluctant to admit it needs changing, which therefore would undermine Bush’s legitimacy. The last factor is there is little agreement on what to change it to. With many ideas and proposals being put forward, it is unlikely that a decision which all states could agree on will ever be put forward. Most of the current suggestions have flaws and weaknesses, which would be silly to put a critical proposal into place. At the moment, despite controversy surrounding the Electoral College, it seems a suitable replacement hasn’t been found. By leaving the College as it is, it seems that it is the sensible option to leave it as the Founding Fathers had made it.
