Electoral College

Electoral College

A major conflict concerning the electoral college lingers in America. The

Constitutional Convention created the college in 1789 in hopes that it would be an

adequate system (MacBride 29). The electoral college consists of senators and

representatives who cast their votes for the state they represent. Those who feel that the

college should remain as it is believe that the American people are too uninformed about

election issues to vote. The argument for the modification of the college maintains that the people are not actually electing the president, but the larger states are. Ultimately, the majority of the United States citizens support the elimination of an electoral college that serves no purpose in the government.

The argument in favor of the continuation of the electoral college holds that it

represents an effective institution. First, the format of the college demonstrates its validity.

The amount of electoral votes awarded to each state, extremely critical in elections,

remains decided by the number of senators and representatives in Congress (Polsby 45).

Many politicians find the existing system extremely efficient because they feel the electors

well represent their constituents (Best 52). In addition, the electoral college’s ability to

efficiently serve its purpose provides a reason for its long existence. “An electoral system

should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that

create uncertainty and public turmoil” (Best 210). Moreover, never in the history of the

electoral college has a controversy developed in which the college rejected “an individual

who had an undisputed majority of the popular vote” (Best 52). Most importantly, those

who agree with preserving the electoral college believe that election by popular vote, the

alternative to the college, would create numerous deficiencies in the system. Election by

direct popular vote would be “hazardous to the nation’s health,” said a concerned citizen

(Weisberger 24). Liable to deceptions of the truth and too uniformed of the candidates, the

people, voting directly, pose a threat to the system of electing presidents (Weisberger 24).

Many people feel that the “popular election of presidents would work a diminution of the

political power of racial and other minority groups in the nation’s urban centers” (B...

... middle of paper ...

...can make all of the difference” (Bickel 50).

Strangely enough, “the presidential nominees tend to come from big states and tend to run

on platforms likely to appeal to interest groups that cluster there” (Polsby 46). The

government’s deciding to continue to utilize the college is a drastic mistake. Ultimately,

the establishment of popular vote as a means for electing the president offers a new hope

for constituents in a political system which often leaves them disillusioned.

Bibliography:

1. Best, Judith. The case against Direct Election of the President. London: Cornell

University Press, 1975, 22, 52, 210.

2. Bickel, Alexander. Reform and Continuity. New York: Harper and Row Publishers,

1971, 5-6, 10-13, 50.

3. MacBride, Roger. The American Electoral College. Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers,

Ltd., 1963, 19, 25-26, 29.

4. Polsby, Nelson. Presidential Elections. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1984,

45-46.

5. Polsby, Nelson. Presidential Elections: Contemporary Strategies of American Electoral

politics. New York: MacMillan, 1988, 32.

6. Weisberger, Bernard. “Electoral Headaches.” American Heritage. November 92: 22-

24.