Pros Of Conserving The Electoral College

The United States of America, which is typically characterized as the beacon of democracy, has been surpassed by nations that better exemplify democratic principles. It is common knowledge that decisions are made by representatives rather than through direct democracy. These representatives are not always directly chosen by the people, but rather through convoluted partisan processes. The idea of democracy as opposed to monarchy became popular during the Enlightenment in Europe. The ideals and principles explored during that time are woven into modern government. The idea that protections must be made against tyranny of the majority and minority were also developed in this time. In the United States, one such protection is the Electoral College,

In his article, Akshay Prabhushankar, contributing writer of Washington Square News, explains the flaws of a popular voting system and how the Electoral College combats this:

”Democrats could campaign solely to the coasts and win the White House, and Republicans could do the same in the South and Midwest....the disproportionately great amount of time and money spent on swing states, but this too is beneficial. Because swing state citizens know they have high voter efficacy, they educate themselves on the issues, rather than blindly following a party” (Prabhushankar).

Although the Electoral College was designed to prevent domination of urban centers or vast rural regions, it causes another problem to arise. In addition to unfair emphasis on swing states, candidates also have little motivation to campaign in states that are unlikely or very likely to support them (Jost).

Additionally, while the problem of campaigning in all fifty states was a relevant problem at the time of the Constitution’s inception, modern day social media and news networks have alleviated this by connecting anyone and everyone who wants to be informed to endless information. According to Marissa Lang from the San Francisco

One such alternative is called the “district plan.” It would divide states into districts whose popular vote result would ascribe to a vote in the electoral college as opposed to actual electors making a decision. Kenneth Jost, author of The Supreme Court from A to Z, explains that there has been resistance to this idea from both parties because “Opponents of the district plan worry that allotting electoral votes by congressional district would exacerbate political gerrymandering —when state legislators redraw congressional districts to maximize their political advantage” (Jost). This is a reasonable concern because there is possibility of manipulation of districts and variability from state to state. One could argue that a certain amount of gerrymandering is possible whenever a system is used that doesn’t use the popular vote as the ultimate decision maker. Additionally, there is no standard rule for states to allot their votes or how to create districts. Andrew Rudalevige, Professor of Government at Bowdoin College, explains the point of view of Electoral College supporters “More crucially, it [the Electoral College] allowed the states to decide how to choose electors -- via popular vote, via the choice of state legislators (something the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision specifically reinforced), or via any other method