This can also work the other way around, some candidates who win the popular vote can then fail to receive a majority in the Electoral College. This is not representational of the people’s choice. An example of this is in 2000, Al Gore won 48.8% of the popular vote; 0.8% less than Bush but in the Electoral College Bush received 6 more votes.
Another problem is that it leaves open the risk of ‘rogue voter’s. Some states have a law which explains that Electors must cast their vote according to the popular vote winner; however, some states do not have this law. The law not being implemented in all states means there is a possibility that electors may vote against the popular vote choice meaning these ‘rogue votes’ will vote for some other candidate.
One last criticism of the system is that smaller states can often be over-represented. For example a very small state such as Wyoming gets an Electoral College vote for every 165,000 people, this is because their population is much less, in contrast a large state such as California only gets one electoral college vote for every 617,000th person. If California got an Electoral College vote for the same number of inhabitants then they would get 205, instead of the 55 Electoral College votes they are actually awarded.
On the other hand, there are some strengths of the system. One of them being that it stops smaller states being swept aside. Although this point was covered as a criticism is can be considered strength because it preserves the smaller states voice. If the Electoral College was to be abolished it would leave smaller states with almost no representation if a proportional representation system was implemented.
Another strength is that it promotes a ‘two-horse race’. This means that there are usually just two leading candidates for electors to choose from although they may vote for other less popular candidates. The good thing about this is that there will usually be one clear winner with an overall majority. This could be described as an important aid in uniting the nation because they may feel more accepting toward the new leader due to the fact that he is clearly the most popular candidate.
There are several possible reforms; one of them being the Maine system. Maine does not use the ‘winner takes all’ system, instead it awards one vote for each congressional district that they win and two votes to the candidate who is the state-wide winner in the popular vote. Unfortunately, this reform would only lead to a marginally different result and would not make that much difference to the proportion of votes. In fact, in 2000 it would have lead to a less proportionate result with Gore losing by 38 votes rather than 5.
One other quite simple and possible reform would be to allocate Electoral College votes in each state in proportion to the popular vote. This would lead to a more equal allocation of votes which would be a lot fairer.
A final possible reform is to abolish the Electoral College, in a poll; citizens said they thought that directly electing the president would be a lot fairer and more representational. It would also be far more democratic. However, the system could not be scrapped unless a constitutional amendment was made which requires 2/3 of congress and ¾ of all states to agree on the amendment and smaller states probably would not.
The case for the Electoral College being abolished is probably the strongest out of the three options because there are a lot more valid criticisms than suitable reforms or strengths of the system. Although, the reforms sound as if they could be beneficial is perhaps combined in a type of hybrid system.
I think that due to the fact that the Electoral College is obviously not representational or particularly democratic, it should be abolished. My justification is that I think direct presidential elections would enhance democracy and therefore give voters more representation.
Hollee Mason 13AJD.
