The Electoral College Should be Abolished

Minority vote per state bears no weight In the Electoral College (EC), every state votes one way or the other, meaning that the presidential vote for that state is determined by over 50% of the voters voting for that candidate. This makes it so that if 51% of the voters in a certain state vote for one candidate while the other 49% of voters vote for the other candidate, then the 51% is what determines the outcome of that state’s decision. Immediately we see a flaw in this system, the 49% of the votes don’t count as a vote towards the president at all. That minority vote has no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election. As we examine the politics of each state, we notice that each state votes differently based on how urban and how rural the state is. States with more urban populations tend to vote Democrat, while rural states trend Republican. Let’s take Illinois for example. Illinois virtually always votes Democrat because of the urban population of Chicago. Since most of the people in that state live in Chicago, the state is solid blue and Republican voters in the rural part of the state are always swept over by the overwhelming vote in Chicago. This is the cause of why many people do not vote at all, because they know their votes will have no effect since a very urban city such as Chicago is also representing their state. Even some Democratic voters know that participating in the election is pointless seeing as how their state is already solid blue. If we abolish the electoral college, more people will vote in the presidential elections. Swing states are the ones who really determine each election. In the last several elections, the only states whose votes make a difference are Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. The major flaw of the electoral college is that if you want your vote to count the most, you need to move to a swing state. If you remain in a solid state, your vote will have a much lesser effect if any on the next president. Unequal population representation We know that citizens in toss up states are the ones who decide the outcome of each election, but the people in “safe” states have a bit of a chance if and only if their electoral votes exceed those of other states which have less votes in relation to population. As of the 2004 election, Colorado had nine times the population as Wyoming, but only three times the electoral votes[1]. The weight of a vote in Wyoming is more than the weight of a vote in Colorado. The Constitution guarantees ever state, no matter how small, at least three votes in the EC. Small states wield a disproportionate share of clout when choosing a president. This may be a little too generous for smaller states. Some people argue that the EC keeps larger states from getting too powerful in elections. However, a popular vote would make sure that no state, large or small, would ever get too powerful. It would be a perfect system in this regard, unlike the EC. A vote in Wyoming would be equal to a vote in California. Such it is that the number of electoral votes is inaccurate to the population of each state. Yet, the EC has done this so that a minority President can be elected. President with minority vote still gets in In the 2000 Presidential Election, George W. Bush was elected despite the fact that he did not win the popular vote. Although Al Gore won 560,000 more votes than Bush[2], Bush grabbed 30 states while Gore took the remaining 20 plus the District of Columbia. This clearly shows that the EC is an inaccurate representation of democracy and won’t always elect the candidate with the popular request to take office. In fact, it is possible to win the presidency with 21.91% of the population voting for you and 78.09% voting against you[3]. This is possible because the EC grants small states more electoral votes in proportion to the population of those small states in relation to big states. Third party candidates get nothing Third party candidates are hardly ever represented in the EC. In fact, some third party votes usually tweak the voting outcome of a state, pushing both the Republican and Democrat candidates below 50% so that a Libertarian or Green candidate can get 2 or 3% of the vote. In some state elections, the outcome has been 49% - 49% - 2%. Since none of the candidates received majority vote, a runoff election is triggered making it so that in a future election only two candidates are on the ballot, while the third party runner is discarded and does not receive a single electoral vote. If a direct popular vote replaces the EC, a third party candidate will receive more of the vote, maybe 100,000 votes nationwide and 1% of the nation’s vote. This is much more fair to that candidate because at least he or she was considered in the results of the national election. In short, there is not one mob rule in this system, but fiftymob rules. A winner-takes-all system based on the region of space you are living in is unfair to the people living both in that space and outside of it. The whole nation will benefit from abolishing the Electoral College and all of the problems that once existed with it will be gone. Sources 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.dflorig.com... 3.