The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

To many, the Electoral College is an aberration. The fact that the world's only superpower can decide its leader by a system that isn't the popular vote rubs many the wrong way, especially when the result can drag into controversy. Some reject the Electoral College entirely on that basis. However, the fact of the matter is the Electoral College serves a number of purposes, and it does a good job at them.What many people neglect is that the United States is fundamentally a nation of states - not a nation divided into numerous provinces. In creating the system to elect Presidents, the founders envisioned the states determining the President - the Constitution provides the states can decide how to allocate their electors, meaning each state has an incredible degree of ability to decide what to. Do as a matter of fact, it wasn't until 1832, the 12th Presidential election, when all states (except for South Carolina) determined their electors by some degree of popular vote.[1] By having the states determine the President and Vice President, candidates are forced to campaign country-wide. For example, take a look at the map from the 2000 election: George Bush won 30 states for 271 electoral votes, while Al Gore won 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 266 electoral votes (1 voter from D.C. abstained). Gore attracted little support from a broad swath of the country, most likely due to his reputation as a liberal, and in turn suffered despite a slim popular vote lead. George Bush, on the other hand, lacked support from highly urban states, as well as states with heavy amounts of union workers and large amounts of Democrats. This election gave a huge amount of power to states - 7 states, worth a collective 59 electoral votes, were within a 10,000 vote margin. Gore barely won the Democratic-leaning states of Oregon and Wisconsin, which Bush made a strong push for, while also winning in the swing states of Iowa and New Mexico, the latter by only 366 votes. Bush won the crucial swing state of Florida, in addition to pulling an upset in the politically moderate New Hampshire.[2] Bush won the election due to his focus on both New Hampshire and Florida, which also served to moderate his stance as a 'compassionate conservative'. In fact, both candidates ran as relative centrists - Gore as the center-left successor to the popular Bill Clinton. Many candidates have tried to pin the other as extremists - notably, Carter (unsucessfully) in 1980 and Obama (successfully) in 2012. This moderation effect also puts a great emphasis on the smaller states, while still respecting the power of the big states.Another major aspect of the electoral college is it both supports and prevents third party runs. Third parties gain an excellent chance for support with the electoral system, with some (like Ralph Nader) even swinging elections. Third parties may force an issue towards public awareness, such as Ross Perot's push for a balanced budget in 1992 and 1996.One unsung advantage of the electoral college is it presents a way to adapt to the death of a candidate. Rather than forcing another election, electors could push to elect the vice president or move the election to the House and Senate to decide.Finally, the electoral college allows states to decide who to elect without requiring a change to the Constitution. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a major effort to change, and if it works it would ensure a popularly-elected President. That is the greatness of the system - it allows itself to change over time, rather than forcing a major national debate on the subject.References:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...;2. https://en.wikipedia.org... results