The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections

IntroductionThe United States’ quadrennial presidential election has been under heavy dispute for a variety of reasons. Primarily, more and more people are worrying about the method in which the president is elected. However, I will particularize the reasons as to why these concerns are unwarranted.Case:C1) The Electoral College mitigates uninformed votes.At the time of its creation, the electoral college was institutionalized to alleviate unlearned and ignorant votes from negatively impacting the election itself. This was a legitimate concern, as brought up by American Patriot George Mason, who “thought the vastness of the country would prevent voters from knowing enough about possible candidates to choose intelligently. The Electoral College was designed to accommodate these competing concerns.” [1] Having a fixture of how many *points* would be awarded candidates would palliate ignorance concerns of American people.With such a vast countryside and growing population, this was of optimal importance. The claim that the electoral college is not democratic is bogus. Uninformed votes, which are still prevalent in today’s society. Namely, 83% of American voters are relatively uninformed. [2] These uninformed votes negatively affect the election and the democracy, especially in regards to what Americans really want. The report compiled by Vanderbilt University backs up this claim. [3]When voters are not knowledgeable about the candidates, they are not aware of what the candidates will do in the executive position. Thus, they do not know exactly who they want in office. Accordingly, this does not undermine democratic values, but at the same time yields positive reflection of what the informed voter wants.C2) Regionalism detriments are deflected through the electoral college.Critics of our current system argue that the electoral college only matters in the “swing-states” and doesn’t represent the entire population. While true to a small degree, we also find benefits of the location-based election system. With our current policy, candidates must win individual states’ electoral votes rather than the country as a whole. This deflects regionalism disputes.Regionalism is basically regional administration rather than an overarching central rule. If a particular region (state) is opposed to the candidate, it allows them the privilege to focus more attention on that area. With direct elections, the effect of regionalism is enhanced. Without any sectional boundaries for the elections, these regional ideals can be easier spread and promoted.An article from the Cato Institute explains how other nations have been adversely affected by regionalism, and how the electoral college assuages its detriments. “We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.” [4]C3) The Electoral College abates the complication of recounts.Though not a direct policy concern, the electoral college is more efficient and pragmatic, especially in regards to potential post-election complications. Close elections would inevitably be under pressure by politicians and citizens alike to call for a recount. These processes are long and difficult to manage as well.In fact, journalist Kevin Massimilian notes, “if there is a close popular election, we face a national recount, which is potentially more destabilizing than the local unpleasantness of 2000. One can look to Florida 2000; the Electoral College has the great merit of confining such election conflicts to one state. A close race in a single state is more likely than a close vote in a national popular election because of the smaller number of total votes.” [5] This is a legitimate concern, and one that should be weighted heavily when considering a policy change as impactful as this.Moreover, senior writer and activist Eric Black wrote an article for the Huffington Post where he sympathizes, “Having gone through the "dimpled-chad" nightmare of the Florida 2000 recount, I have more sympathy for this argument than any other... If the nationwide popular vote resulted in a near-tie between the two tickets, both parties would have an incentive to seek recounts wherever they thought such a recount might gain them a few votes, including in states that weren't even close.” [6] If a state vote is not anywhere close, it’s obvious who wins, and there is no need for a recount. This pain can be avoided with the electoral college.Besides the simple recount issue, another is concurrent with the possible problem. Massimilian continues, “A national recount would be extremely difficult to conduct, it would provide for an even greater fraudulent opportunity, and would be very costly and highly chaotic.” Note the key word “fraudulent.” A direct popular vote brings with it the distinct possibility of political fraud. US Senators noted this concern by stating, “Direct election of the president [would] create an irresistible temptation to electoral fraud.” [7]Rebuttals:R1) Misinformed electors1. I already covered this point, but it merits bringing up again. Because voters (83%) are relatively uninformed, this does not undermine democratic values.2. The “swing-states” help counterbalance misinformed votes from other states.3. Informing electors is not plausible, even with the information age upon us.R2) Swing votes1. The need to defend against regionalism detriments is more important than potential low-degree swing-vote effects.2. It is imperative that needs are addressed on state levels, and the possibility of swing votes and regionalism will force candidates to address them.R3) Third-party candidates1. The concern is of excluding the third-party is unwarranted. Chances of success from third-party candidates is already low. [8]2. Since the third party has little chance of winning, we should pursue the option that is best beneficial. [9]ConclusionThough many people don’t recognize the detriments of direct election compared to the benefits of the electoral college, it is imperative to address and define each in this debate. While wish to abolish the electoral college, I have shown by bringing a case of my own along with refuting each of my opponent’s arguments it would not be a good idea to do so, and that our faith should remain in the effective, pragmatic, and successful status quo.Sources: [1] http://www.americanbar.org... [2] http://www.rasmussenreports.com... [3] https://my.vanderbilt.edu... [4] http://www.cato.org... [5] http://www.chicagonow.com... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [7] http://teachingamericanhistory.org... [8] http://articles.latimes.com... [9] http://www.warrencountyschools.org...