The Electoral College Should Be Abandoned

Most people who favor abolishing the Electoral College (EC) believe that a Nationwide Popular Vote (NPV) for the presidency is "more fair" because it better reflects the will of the people as to who should be president. This is an age old issue which goes back to the Founding Fathers. In the early days of the United States there was a debate among the States as to "how much representation" each State should get in the federal government. States that were more heavily populated felt they should get more votes because they represent more people. States that were less populated disagreed as they did not want to have to bend to the will of the larger States around every corner. The structure of the EC provides the best compromise to this issue when determining who should be president. The number of electors for each State is determined by the number of members it has in the House plus the number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of the State's population). Therefore the Constitution was drafted to grant more representation to larger States while, at the same time, preventing tyranny of the majority. Points of Interest: 1. A nationwide popular vote assumes that all States are equal in population. All States are not equal in population. Some States are more heavily populated than other States. If we were to go to a nationwide popular vote then there are enough people in the States of California, Illinois, New York, and Florida to decide every election. Without the EC, what voice would people in Wyoming get in who should be president? The EC forces each presidential candidate to win over people in ALL States. If we were to have a nationwide popular vote, people living in smaller States would be ignored which could lead to disruption of our union. Furthermore, abolishing the EC involves an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which requires ï¿½ of the States to agree. How absurd would representatives from Wyoming and Nebraska sound if they went to their people and told them, "We're giving up our say in presidential elections?" While States like California and Florida may favor abolishing the EC, it's unfair (and unrealistic) to expect smaller States to give up their advantage. If smaller States didn't want to do this 233 years ago, I don't think they will want to it today. 2. Each individual vote in smaller States carry more weight than they would in a direct election. Think about it. In smaller States each vote is more important because there are fewer people in those States. In order for a candidate to win the presidency he/she has to win a majority of the EC votes which translates to a majority of States. Therefore, in order for a candidate to become president he/she has no choice to but to address the concerns of people in smaller States because he/she can't become president without the support of those States. 3. The EC helps ensure that voices of minorities are heard in the election. Large States, like California for example, are referred to as "Majority-Minority" States. This means that the majority of the population in California is comprised of ethnic groups which only represent a minority of people nationwide. i.e. Hispanics, African Americans, Asians etc. Reference: http://www.census.gov... If we were to have a nationwide popular vote then the interests of minority groups would be ignored as they don't represent a majority. However, given that California has 55 electoral votes it's an important state. Consequently, if a candidate wants to win CA, then the voices of minorities need to be addressed. Minorities would completely lose this advantage in a nationwide popular vote. On the surface, the Electoral College may seem like it's taking away the people's right to choose the president, but it's really not. In most cases the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election. Opponents of the EC usually site the handful of instances when the popular vote lost the election to the EC vote. These are rare occurrences, and over the course of history they only prove our commitment to representing all people and not just the majority. I like to think of the EC as being like Handicapped Bowling. The player who is underdog in a bowling match is given some "extra credit" at the beginning of the game in order to help even the playing field. However, in most cases, the person who is the better bowler still wins the game. On occasions when the underdog wins the bowling match as a result of his "extra credit," this is a legitimate win because the opportunity was spread evenly among the players from the beginning. Any flukes that have occurred with the popular vote losing previous elections are the exception and not the norm. So why give up the protections the EC provides just so we can get a system we think is "more fair?" The safeguards provided by the EC far outweigh any of its' perceived disadvantages. The EC represents the will of the people while at the same time preventing tyranny of the majority. And that, my friends, is in the best interest of all.