Civic Issues Blog #1: The Electoral College: Currently Outdated or Relevant Today?
Two-hundred seventy. This number, as one may be able to guess, is the required number of electoral votes that a presidential nominee must obtain before unofficially winning the general election to become the President of the United States of America. The institution that establishes these system of winning electoral votes is called the Electoral College – who would have guessed? The Electoral College was established in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This political tool ensures that states can vote for the President in a way that reflects their population compared to that of other states. In other words, the Electoral College delegates a certain number of electors per state (based on relative population) in order to give each state a much fairer way to vote for and select the President. This step was originally taken to ensure that heavily populated areas with similar values could not have a monopoly on voting in the President; it gave the more rural, less populous areas a similar degree of voice in the election. The Electoral College still exists and is put into use today. However, many believe that the United States has outgrown its need for Electoral College and that it should be abolished. In this blog post, as well as throughout the entire blog as a whole, we will see every side to the issue and reason as to why each argument is valid. This a skill that is important to have in a world as diverse as ours.
The argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College is rather consistent with the one that merited its creation in the first place. States vary in population just as they vary in opinions, value, and physical needs, to name a few. This argument contends that diversity of ideas and needs should be represented in the United States government, which is not true of a direct democracy – where the majority rules. Obviously, having a smaller population makes it much more difficult for a state with specific ideals (that likely differ from others) to have an impact on the election of federal officials, e.g. the President, and the decisions that they make for the country. Those supporting this argument would likely state that when each state is given a number of electors that proportionally represents them and their beliefs, it is a much simpler to have a significant voice in the country. Republicans are generally known for painting this view.
The argument in favor of abolishing the Electoral College is, as one may have guessed, diametrically opposite. Those that believe the institution should be eliminated posit that we live in a democratic nation and the means of electing our political figureheads and leaders should reflect these values: those of direct democracy. Those in favor of the Electoral College’s abolishment believe that the majority of the votes should be heard, since they represent the largest portion of the overall populace. They might suggest that when systems like the Electoral College are used, they circumvent the direct wishes of those that use them and diminish the principles of democracy. Instead these individuals would opt to implement a popular vote for the President. Those that usually support this view are likely to align with the Democratic Party.
The first thing to note about the most recent conversation of the Electoral College’s legitimacy is that it came following the 2016 election of Donald Trump over opponent Hillary Clinton. Much of people’s opinions behind whether or not they support any idea can be based on whether or not the institution is beneficial to them. The political parties of the United States’ two-party system have reaped wildly different outcomes from the Electoral College system. Republicans have benefitted from it four times, where their candidate won the 270 electoral-vote majority despite losing the popular vote (with the elections of Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George Bush, and Donald Trump); Democrats have not benefited from the system once.
This motivation, especially in this very contemporary society where things are repeatedly blown out of proportion, carries a significant weight. It has not benefitted Democrats, therefore they generally don’t support; vice-versa for Republicans. Tribal constraints often lead both sides to support their side’s “self-prescribed solution” – whether that regards the Electoral College, abortion, gun control, and so on.
Conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute writer Peter Wallison believes implementing a popular vote system would “do more harm than good” because it would allow for politicians to run on one-issue campaigns, which narrows down the country’s representation even more. Conversely, Lee Collum of KERA News says that changing to a National Popular Vote (NVP) system would “return power from the collective states to the individuals.” Scholarly opinions and professional commentary on the topics reflect different views on how to approach the phenomenon that is the presidential election. However, each party does have a common goal: to find a way to best represent the American people in the Presidential electoral system.
I think it is vastly importantly for both sides to consider that they each have the country’s best interests at heart. I think to burst the bubbles of tribalism, each side must sit down and have discourse regarding the issue at hand. It is important not to presuppose the other side’s motives, which each party does unfailingly. I think to work through solutions on how to find a common goal, it’s important to start at the goal and work backwards,. finding ways to fuse and conjoin two differing methods of actions and gleaning that desired outcome. I believe that the opinions regarding the Electoral College specifically would perhaps meet in the middle. Direct democracy definitely has a place in the United States – for electing those in other government positions. It is also important to listen to the wills of everyone. For the sake of the country as a whole, however, a state’s more generalized representation helps to not drown out the minority (of Flyover states) and give them the footing they need to fairly contribute to voting in the President they deem fit. Regardless of what you think, it’s important that each side is heard, because to achieve positive ends as a country, we have to set aside political differences and learn to compromise aspects of what would otherwise be entirely idealistic situations.
Leave a Reply