Abolish the Electoral College

Opening Arguments Although at a quick glance, one might assume that the electoral college system as utilized in the United States is the very antithesis of democracy and a blatantly oligarchic system, this is not actually the case. The electoral college system is necessary to maintain equality of votes, although it may seem to achieve an opposite result. I'll point out a few of the reasons why the electoral college system is necessary in the United States today in my opening argument. I. Transregional AppealThe primary argument for the electoral college system is that in order for a candidate to win an election, they must have pan American support, not just from a particular region. Truthfully, this was not the case when the electoral college system was first enacted in the early 19th century, however it is true now. If the vote was based upon population, presidential candidates would not be required to campaign in states such as Wyoming or Rhode Island since their voting impact would have a minimal effect on the election. However with the electoral college, a candidate is taking a much bigger risk in not campaigning in less populated states since they still carry a few electoral college votes that have the potential of swaying the election. On a side note, small states also have the tendency to be swing states (i.e Wyoming, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado). Therefore they get extra attention from candidates since each party has an equal chance at securing the vote there. Again, these states would not get anywhere near this amount of attention if the election was based on a popular vote [1]. II. Neutralizing the Power of Large States Somewhat related to the first argument, the electoral college also helps prevents the larger states from gaining too much political power over their smaller and less populous peers. If the elections were based on the popular vote, states such as California would gain much more importance in an election as I already said in the last argument. CNS journalist Kevin Price describes that "This means that even one of the smallest states, like Vermont, has at least 3 Electoral votes (it has one Congressman and two Senators). Meanwhile the largest state (California) has 55 Electoral votes (two Senators, 53 House members). Vermont's population is only 621,000, while California has over 36 million. Mathematically, California is 57 times larger than Vermont. However, it is only 18 times more powerful in the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure that Vermont and all the other smaller states have political influence" [2].III. Preventing Divisions in Political PartiesThis argument can be taken in both a positive and negative light. Another pro to the electoral college system is that since it is so party oriented, it prevents the expansion of any third party movements. Now this may seem undemocratic, as it prohibits freedom of speech and expression in politics, however it can also be interpreted as a mere necessity [3]. I myself and an Independent, irked by the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties. However, even I must acknowledge that it is detrimental to have an excess of political parties. For example, in the Weimar Republic, the Reichstag was dominated by over thirty political parties, each with vastly different views on government. It lead to lack of efficiency in the government, and the rise of extremely radical parties like the Communists and the Nazis. In the US this is far less likely to happen since the electoral college ensures that only two parties have a good chance at winning a presidential election and maintains relative stability in the government. Sources[1] http://www.slate.com...[2] http://cnsnews.com...[3] http://uselectionatlas.org...