Electoral College The Minority Candidate example essay topic

Since the foundation of America, the Electoral College has been the means of deciding the next president of the United States. Until the recent fiasco in the 2000 Florida presidential election, most people accepted the Electoral College as a fair way to decide a future president. In truth, the Electoral College has always been imbalanced and unfair. It was originally designed in Article II of the Constitution, so that each state receives an elector for every senator (two per state) and representative (number based on population). The way in which Electors were chosen was left up to the individual states. Each elector would vote for two candidates, and whoever received a simple majority (one half plus one votes) would become the next president.

Whoever received the second most votes became vice president (Kimberling). After the Election of 1800, the Fourth Amendment introduced the idea of a vice president and president ticket. In addition, the amendment said that if a candidate did not receive an absolute majority in the Electoral College then the House of Representatives decided the next president. Presently all states choose their electors via statewide popular vote, and one presidential candidate receives all the electoral votes from each state (Kimberling).

Upon close examination, it is easy to see the numerous flaws in the Electoral College. First, the most popular candidate does not necessarily win the presidency. Second, as it stands the Electoral College diminish voter turnout. Third, "faithless electors", of which this country has had many, could decide an election. Lastly, the House of Representatives and, even an extreme case, the vice president can decide the president. The most obvious problem with the Electoral College is that a president can receive the majority of the votes and lose.

In a true election the most popular candidate always wins. However, in America a candidate simply needs a one-vote majority in enough states to receive 270 electoral votes. Several times in the past, most notably in the Election of 1888 between Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland, the minority candidate has won the Electoral College and therefore the election. A democracy is "a majority rule" (Dictionary. com). If a minority candidate can win an election, America is not a true democracy. The Electoral College does not take into account voter turnout when assigning electors, thereby diminishing voter turnout and not giving each man one vote.

Electors are assigned to states as the number representatives and senators change. There are always two senators from every state, but the number of representatives from a state change proportionally according to population. Imagine for a second that in the next election Ohio, which currently has roughly 11.5 million people and a proportionate twenty electors, has a record low turnout of only one million voters. On the other hand in this same election, Missouri, which has about 5.5 million people and a proportionate eleven electors, has a record high turnout of 3 million voters. This would be an absolute atrocity because each Missourian vote cast would count a great deal less than each Ohioan vote cast. One million Ohioans do not accurately account for the votes of 11.5 million.

If the Electoral College is to remain in use, the least that the government could do is to make it so that the number of electors is proportionate to the number of voters in each state and not the number of citizens. In addition, the Electoral College diminishes voter turnout because in a deep-seated Republican state a Democratic vote is essentially meaningless. Weeks before an election it is clear that certain candidates will carry certain states by an overwhelming majority like George W. Bush in the Election of 2004. Now, a hardcore liberal, Bush-hater, friend of mine who lives in Texas did not bother to cast his vote for John Kerry in 2004 because he thought it was pointless. To him and almost all Americans, Bush had already won Texas. However, if the presidential election were decided by popular vote then a Democratic vote in a Strong Republican state would have weight.

One past problem of the Electoral College has been "faithless electors", or electors that do not cast their vote for the candidate they are supposed to. Although this problem has yet to change the outcome of an election, in the future it might. In just the last century, there have been seven such electors, most recently in 1988 (The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System). There is a simple solution to this problem: a constitutional amendment to abolish individual electors. There is no need for individual electors any longer because by making the Electoral College a mathematical formula it will eliminate "faithless electors". That this has yet to happen points to Congresses inability to successfully recognize and fix obvious abuses.

To keep the Electoral College is one thing, but to ignore glaring evils that might arise is preposterous. Another major flaw in the Electoral College is the tie-breaking procedure. In the case of an electoral tie across the country, the House of Representatives will vote for the president. Each state will receive one vote, and whichever candidate receives 26 votes wins the presidency. This to say is unfair to say the least. Currently, the lone Alaskan representative would have just as much say in deciding the president as all fifty-three Californian representatives combined if there were to be an electoral tie.

That is not the only tie-breaking travesty: a president can get stuck with the opposing parties vice presidential candidate. In the event of a tie, the Senate decides the vice president. Each senator casts one vote for vice president, and whoever receives the simple majority wins. It is very conceivable that a president must serve his term with his vice presidential opponent. In the unlikely yet possible event of a in Senate, the current vice president breaks the tie, and in many cases the current vice president will be running for reelection. Honestly, what type of respectable election process allows a man with the deciding vote to vote for himself?

Even though the Electoral College once had its purpose and was a neccasry means of choosing the next American leader, it is no longer so. In the Electoral College the minority candidate can win and unfortunately a selected few like representatives from small states, "faithless electors", and current vice presidents can decide elections. Beside, the Electoral College diminishes voter turnout. The numerous inherent problems with the current system and possible abuses that can result are clearly enough to begin a change. Either the U.S. should change the Electoral College or get rid of it all together, and institute a basic popular vote.