The Electoral College also faces the problem of state bias which favors the votes of some citizens over that of others. Firstly, it gives undue weight to the votes of citizens in the smaller states. As the constitution assigns a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives, each state will at least have three electors, including the smaller states. This system gives “bonus votes” to the smaller states since the three electors they have are more than what they deserve on the basis of their population share. Therefore, this bias gives added power to citizens of small states. For example, in the 2000 election, California cast one electoral vote for every 203,071 voters while Wyoming cast one electoral vote for every 71,242. Al Gore lost because his votes were not dispersed across the states in a such manner as to prevail in the Electoral College. The race was lost in the smaller states where Bush successfully won eleven out of eighteen small states.
Secondly, the Electoral College and its winner takes all system gives greater voting power to the larger states since they have more electors. It is possible that a candidate could win the presidency with only 27% of the popular vote if he or she wins all of the eleven largest states without having to capture a single popular vote in the remaining 39 states and D.C. Therefore, candidates would spend more time in the larger states. To the extent that large states are not as competitive in larger states like California and Texas (solid blue and red states), candidates will target the more competitive larger states (swing states) such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This system discourages voter turnout and disenfranchises people who vote for the losing candidates in the solid blue or red states. This is because in these noncompetitive states, one or the other major party is traditionally victorious. There is arguably less motivation for citizens in that state to vote, no matter which candidate they might support because they know their vote will not matter.
To conclude, U.S. should switch to direct election as it is the best system that guarantees the president has the “ direct popular mandate” from the people. It also ensure representativeness (“one person, one vote”) and encourages voters turnout by giving voters a direct and equal role in electing the president.
References
Abbott, David W. and James P. Levine, 1991. Wrong Winner: the Coming Debacle in the Electoral College. Connecticut: Preagar Publisher.
Feerick, John D, 1968. The Electoral College: Why It Ought To Be Abolished, Fordham Law Review, Vol 37, Issue 1.
Jenkins, Carolyn Jefferson. Who Should Elect the President? The Case Against the Electoral College, National Civic Review, Vol 90, Issue 2.
Johnson, Bonnie J. Identities of Competitive States in U.S. Presidential Elections: Electoral College Bias or Candidate – Centered Politics, “Publius, Vol 35, No.2.
Bonnie J. Johnson, “Identities of Competitive States in U.S. Presidential Elections: Electoral College Bias or Candidate – Centered Politics, “ Publius, Vol 35, No.2 (Spring , 2005): 337.
Carolyn Jefferson Jenkins, “Who Should Elect the President? The Case Against the Electoral Collge,” National Civic Review, Vol 90, Issue 2, (Summer 2001)
David W. Abbott and James P. Levine, “Wrong Winner: the Coming Debacle in the Electoral College.”(Connecticut: Preagar Publisher, 1991), 77.
Under this system, a candidate who wins the popular vote in the state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. (Except Maine and Nebraska)
John D. Feerick, “The Electoral College: Why It Ought To Be Abolished, “ Fordham Law Review, Vol 37, Issue 1 (January 1968): 12.
by
ericz91 (student)
