Should We Keep The Electoral College

Against Democracy? The argument that a candidate could win the election with only 21% of the vote is extremely weak. In a direct popular vote, third parties would begin to arise because chances for victory would increase. In a direct vote system, you don’t need to win a majority, only a plurality. If enough third parties came into existence, the same exact scenario would be plausible if we abolished the electoral college (EC). The Conservative party in Canada, where there isn’t an electoral college, won with only 37% of the vote [1. http://bit.ly...]. In the UK, the Conservatives won with only 36% of the vote [2. http://bbc.in...]. In Sweden, the Social Democratic party won with 30.7% of the vote [3. http://bit.ly...]. The issue of winning a plurality and not a majority of votes would exist even if we abolished the electoral college. The EC legitimizes a victorious candidate. Lincoln only won 39.7% of the vote when he became president. However, he won twice as many electoral college votes as his opponent, Breckinridge. This legitimized the victory and allowed Lincoln to become president [4. http://bit.ly...] For candidates who technically lose the popular vote, but win a majority of the electoral college, it makes it easier for them to claim victory because they handily won in the actual electoral process. Even in close elections, the electoral college result is usually won by large margins [5. http://herit.ag...]. By causing a clear victory in a close election, people will rally behind the President. Only three US presidents have ever won the electoral college without a plurality in the national vote. The debate isn’t over the EC necessarily being democratic, but rather between democracy with Federalism or with democracy lacking Federalism. According to the Heritage Foundation, “[T]he issue is democracy with federalism (the Electoral College) versus democracy without federalism (a national popular vote). Either is democratic. Only the Electoral College preserves federalism, moderates ideological differences and promotes national consensus in our choice of a chief executive.” [6. http://herit.ag...]. An academic study on the issue has found that voting power in the electoral college versus a popular vote is about the same. Not only this, but the electoral college always favors the winner of the popular vote unless the popular vote is extremely close. The power of an individual vote is charted below [10. http://bit.ly...] s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="505px;" height="286px;" /> The actual power of an individual vote is about the same when compared to popular vote. In the 1990s, individual votes were significantly more powerful under the EC than what would have occurred if we had a popular vote. This demonstrates how the EC can be more democratic than a simple voting tally. All emphasis on swing states? Staunch red states like Utah received visits from Gov. Romney and Vice President Joe Biden during the 2012 election. Blue New York and California also attracted attention from both sides. Although it is true that Ohio and Florida received the most attention, to say that small states are ignored is incorrect [7. http://wapo.st...]. Although ad spending was concentrated in swing states, small states like Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Vermont recieved a significant amount of attention, suggesting these small states have a an impact on election outcomes [8. http://wapo.st...]. A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Economic Inquiry found that votes in “New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado,” all small states, have a larger effect on voting outcomes than other states [9. http://bit.ly...]. The EC accomplishes the goal of empowering small states. What’s wrong with a popular vote? Tyranny of the majority. As James Madison wrote, “[A] pure democracy ... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. ... democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” [11. http://bit.ly...] Vote recounts. Although recounts occur in our current system, recounts are usually local. Electoral college margins of victory are much larger than victories in the popular vote. As the electoral college usually gives one side a large advantage in votes, despite the election being close, recounts are useless because multiple states would have to flip--the only recent exception was 2000. In Europe has had recount issues. In 2006, Italy recounted their votes [12. http://ind.pn...]. In 2014, some UK parliamentary races were recounted [13. http://bbc.in...]. In 2010, Sweden recounted their parliamentary election votes [14. http://reut.rs...]. The issue with recounts is that they cost time and money. For congressional races, where we do not have an EC (but instead popular) system, we are already facing recount cost issues. It cost the state of Washington over $1 million to recount votes in its 2004 gubernatorial election and $460,000 for Michigan’s 2008 senate election [15. http://bit.ly...]. Imagine if we applied this to the nation as a whole. The cost would be sky high. COUNTERPLAN: Mend it, don’t end it If we were to have a system like Nebraska or Maine in every state, it would encourage more attention to smaller states and virtually eliminate the issue of an undemocratic outcome while still promoting Federalism. Like in Nebraska and Maine, the winner of the statewide vote would receive two electoral votes. The rest of the electoral votes would be split based on who won congressional districts. Say Obama won New Mexico’s election. He gets two electoral votes. He also wins two congressional districts, and Romney won the southern district. That means Romney gets one electoral vote from NM, and Obama gets 4. This removes the worry of my opponent’s contention 2 and minimizes the threat of having an undemocratic outcome.