The year is 2016, the stakes are high and the votes have been tallied. Hillary Clinton wins
the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, but Donald Trump wins the majority of electoral
votes, becoming the next president. Some people say this is unjust; do we the people not vote for
our own president? The year is now 2026 and the Electoral College is still one of the most
heavily debated topics in American politics. Whether the Electoral College should be kept,
dismantled, or be reformed have all been proposed at one point or another. Many people know or
have heard of the Electoral College, but not as many know how it actually works. For starters, it
isn't a college at all. The Electoral College is actually an electoral process. When voting for the
president of the United States, citizens don’t vote directly for the president. Voters are actually
voting for their state’s electors who then vote for the president. Each state has a different amount
of electors that contribute to the electoral vote. Each state receives one elector for each person in
Congress from that state, two for each senator, and one for each representative in the House of
Representatives. When the Electoral College was created it was controversial even at the time. It
could not be decided if Congress should hold the power to choose a president or if it should be
done by popular vote. The Electoral College was a compromise to these two ideas. Many people
say this is unjust and should switch to a direct election. However, a direct election can bring
about unforeseen consequences as well as foreseen ones. Others say the founding fathers were
right to elect a president via the Electoral College and we should keep it the way it's always been.
Is the devil we know better than the devil we don't, or is there a compromise between these
extreme beliefs?
Perspective #1 Abolish Electoral College
A popular opinion lately is the idea that the Electoral College should be abolished
completely. In the article “It’s Time to Abolish the Electoral College,” Darrel West suggests the
replacement of the Electoral College with a direct vote. West suggests the Electoral College is
outdated because it was designed with the assumption that people were uneducated and the
educated people in power should be the ones who choose the president. This rationale made
sense at the time but we no longer live in a society where education is hard to come by. Voters
today are much more knowledgeable and are able to make their own choices. People have moved
past the need for the government to vote for them. Another claim against the Electoral College is
the faithless elector problem. Seven electors voted contrary to their state’s popular vote in the
2016 election (West). Even though people voted for one candidate, the electors voted for a
different one. This highlights the untrustworthiness of the Electoral College because no matter
what the popular vote is, electors in some states can vote for whoever they please. West sees the
possibility of faithless electors changing the outcome of the presidential vote in the future. The
Electoral College can systematically overrepresent the views of the few over the views of the
many (West). West writes this happens because all states have at least two Electoral College
votes no matter the size or population of the state. This makes the numerous smaller and medium
sized states have a disproportionate amount of Electoral College votes. This is how presidential
candidates can lose the popular vote but still win with Electoral College votes. Elections where
the president loses the popular vote but proceeds to win the majority of the Electoral College
votes could become normalized (West). This leaves the candidate with the minority of the
popular vote to become elected.
Perspective #2 To Keep the Electoral College
In times of uncertainty about the effectiveness of the Electoral College, there are people
who defend it. Allen Guelzo writes of the importance of the Electoral College in his article, “In
Defense of the Electoral College”. The first argument Guelzo writes in the defense of the
Electoral College is how the popular vote and electoral votes have only been different five times.
Out of these five times, the electoral vote and popular vote have only been drastically different in
the 2016 and 1888 elections.. Guelzo explains that criticism of the Electoral College for this
reason is misguided, that this is the intended way for the Constitution. According to Guelzo, the
Electoral College had unintended advantages over a direct voting system. One of these
advantages is that presidential candidates must appeal to a wider range of people. If there was a
direct popular vote, presidential candidates would simply target highly populated urban cities and
states, leaving the rest of the population out. Another unintended advantage the electoral system
has over a direct vote is that it discourages voter fraud (Guelzo). While voter fraud could happen
with the electoral system, it would only make a difference if an immense amount of fraud were
to occur to get any electoral votes. If we were under a direct voting system, any amount of fraud
anywhere can sway the result of the presidential election. Guelzo finds the third unforeseen
benefit of the Electoral College is that it reduces third-party candidates. Third party candidates in
this case are referring to smaller candidates that are also running for office. If a direct vote
system was the case with third party candidates, the selected presidents would need an
increasingly smaller percentage of votes. Guelzo wraps up his claims by stating the Electoral
College was designed as the brakes for electing presidents who may use popularity against
Congress.
Points of Disagreement
Both West and Guelzo have arguments that agree and disagree with each other on
whether to keep or abandon the Electoral College. The main point of disagreement is the support
for an election by popular vote. West directly states his favor for the popular vote citing the
discrepancies between electoral votes and popular votes. These discrepancies will only become
more commonplace if there is no Electoral College reform (West). Contrary, Guelzo feels
abolishing the Electoral College for a popular vote would mean destroying federalism. Another
thing Guelzo points out is that the Constitution does not guarantee a popular election as it does
an electoral one. However, West acknowledges that the Constitution can be changed and or
amended to guarantee a popular election instead of only an electoral one. Another major point of
disagreement between these two authors is how the Electoral College brings legitimacy and
stability. Guelzo states that the Electoral College prevents third party and fragmented elections.
This in turn brings stability to the electoral system. Whereas West sees the Electoral College as
bringing instability and sees it as undermining the people's choices. He sees this instability as a
bigger issue when presidents lose the popular vote. Whether the Electoral College is now
outdated or still applied to our time is another point these two authors don’t see eye to eye on.
West argues that due to geographic disparities and high income inequalities the Electoral College
is no longer practical or effective for our society. On the other hand, Guelzo believes that the
Electoral College is still important today to slow down important decision making, prevent mob
mentality, and to protect liberty.
Points of Agreement
While West and Guelzo both disagree with their main ideas, there are some aspects that
they do agree with. Guelzo and West agree that the making of the Electoral College was
purposeful and was relevant at the time. They both see the Electoral College as a compromise
between one state legislature or Congress choosing the next president. Another point Guelzo and
West agree on are the controversial outcomes that the Electoral College can sometimes produce.
These controversial outcomes are when the popular vote and electoral votes are in opposition.
Even though Guelzo recognizes these outcomes as controversial, he does not see it as a valid
criticism of the Electoral College as a whole. Another point of agreement between Guelzo and
West is how they recognize that the Electoral College is deeply rooted into our Constitution and
would be difficult to remove. Guelzo states that getting rid of the Electoral College does not
immediately grant the people a popular vote but an amendment or rewriting the Constitution
would have to take place. West echoes this message and writes that a permanent solution to the
Electoral College would have to be an amendment, which he states is very difficult to achieve.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Source #1
Both arguments have their own strengths and weaknesses. For West, he does a very good
job at describing the state of modern politics. These modern politics include income inequality,
geographic disparities, and how they play a role in the Electoral College. These arguments do a
good job at being relevant and convincing the reader that the abolishment of the Electoral
College is a good idea. A major shortcoming of West’s article however, is the speculation that
differences in the popular and electoral votes would become commonplace, the only reasoning
given is economic and geographic inequalities. West does not give evidence showing this would
be the case. Furthermore, the victors for all elections after the 2016 election have had the popular
vote coincide with the majority of electoral votes.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Source #2
Similarly, Guelzo has points of strength, but also areas where his argument falls short.
The way Guelzo writes his article is as a response to criticism of the Electoral College. This
format lets Guelzo delve into the main reasons why people would want to abolish the Electoral
College and directly counter these arguments. Some of the topics Guelzo tackles are how people
believe the Electoral College is undemocratic and rooted in slavery, these are critical arguments
and Guelzo does well to explain against them. Where Guelzo falls short is the modern relevance
of his reasoning. Though Guelzo has good arguments, he focuses on the past too much and
downplays issues with the Electoral College that we are currently having. One of the issues
Guelzo downplayed is the fact that the 2016 election had opposing popular and electoral votes.
Guelzo writes these criticisms off as misguided and fails to see the credibility these opposing
views have on the matter. Guelzo should not write this criticism off so hastily as it is one of the
driving factors for support of abolishing the Electoral College.
Conclusion
The debate between whether to keep or abolish the Electoral College reflects the tension
of modern day politics. There is no obvious solution to this problem and people grow restless for
action to be taken. West claims rising inequalities paired with the outdated system urge the need
to switch to a direct vote. He highlights the views that many Americans harbor. However, Guelzo
explains the historical importance as well as how the Electoral College provides a more secure
election. While the Electoral College is not without flaws, abolishing it completely would take
time, resources, and could bring about problems that don’t exist within our current system.
Rather than being a choice between two extremes, there may be a compromise in the way of an
Electoral College reform. One reform could be done in the way of a proportional allocation of
votes. A proportional system would work by awarding candidates with electoral votes based on
the percentage of votes received in a state, this allows states to award electoral votes to multiple
candidates. This system would let everyone in a state have their voice heard while eliminating
the winner-take-all system we have now. An update to the Electoral College such as the
proportional system would reflect modern values that West has argued for while preserving the
strong foundation of the Electoral College that Guelzo has defended.
Work Cited
Guelzo, Allen. “In Defense of the Electoral College.” National Affairs, 2018,
www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college.
West, Darrell M. “It’s Time to Abolish the Electoral College.” Brookings, 15 Oct. 2019,
www.brookings.edu/articles/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/.
Comments
Post a Comment