We do not need the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an anachronistic organization and it should be abolished. It was constructed at time when the country was very different. Today, we should have elections based upon the popular vote, which is more representative of what people actually want. The 2000 election showed what can happen under the Electoral College system. Fairness? False. On the pro side, he/she said that it would be fairer to the smaller states and that they need protection. But that shouldn\’t be an excuse to give the smaller states a disproportionate amount of power. With the Electoral College, the amount of electors each state has depends on population. However, since every state is guaranteed three electors, states with a smaller population, such as Alaska, have more power than should actually represent them. In addition, this takes away representation from larger states. This doesn\’t accurately represent all of the people. But honestly, what do the smaller states need protection from? After all, the fiercest rivalries are between large states. And since many of the smaller states aren\’t even visited, the Electoral College doesn\’t exactly protect them. Plus, if we elect by popular vote, there will be less of a chance of a \”swing\” state like Florida changing the outcome of the election. There will be less benifit for voter fraud. So, it would actually prevent voter fraud if we appointed the president by popular vote. There have been multiple times in history when the winner of the popular vote did not actually win the election.
Even though most people voted for one candidate, the other still won. Is this considered fair? The Electoral College is corrupt and needs to be banned. It is not necessary. There are advantages and disadvantages to the Electoral College system, but it is certainly not necessary today to elect the President. The President could be simply elected by popular vote, as in the majority of other democracies, and this would widely be accepted by the American public. It would also eliminate the situation where a candidate could be elected President despite actually having fewer votes. The Electoral vote is flawed. It may have worked in 1775 but in 2012 it can be manipulated. The popular vote is the will of the people. Of course politicians don\’t like the popular vote because they then would have to work hard in every state. The media does not like the popular vote because they loose control. The popular vote gives the power back to the people. Amend the Constitution!
Big question: Why do we still have the Electoral College? Established in 1787, the Electoral College is as old as the U. S. Constitution. Marquette Magazine asked Dr. Paul Nolette, assistant professor in the department of political science, why, after 225 years, we still use the Electoral College system to elect our president instead of the popular vote? Turn on your favorite TV news program and youБre likely to hear about how each presidential candidate is faring among БWal-Mart Moms,Б БNASCAR Dads,Б or another critical voting group.
As Americans were reminded in 2000, however, this presidential election will ultimately be decided by the 538 members of the Electoral College. Why is the Electoral College part of the Constitution? And why does it still exist today? During the debates over the Constitution, Alexander HamiltonБs defense of the Electoral College suggested that electors would bring greater wisdom to presidential selection. БA small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations,Б he wrote in БFederalist #68. Б Several of the ConstitutionБs framers viewed the Electoral College as a protection of state power. Individual states would send electors who would presumably prevent the election of a candidate threatening to centralize power in the federal government. Many of the original justifications for the Electoral College have less force today. Other constitutional features meant to protect the states have since changed. The 17th Amendment, for example, shifted the selection of senators from state legislatures to popular election. The notion that electors have better deliberative capacity than the general populace is now passц, especially since electors today are partisan activists who commit themselves to a candidate well before Election Day.
So why do we keep the Electoral College? One argument is that the Electoral College ensures more attention to less populous states otherwise at risk of being ignored by presidential candidates. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. The problem is that under the current system, the vast majority of states are already ignored by candidatesБББincluding not only most of the smallest but several of the largest as well. The lionБs share of the attention goes to an increasingly small number of swing states that could realistically favor either candidate. This may be to our benefit here in the Badger State, but not so for those in Nebraska, Rhode Island or any of the 40 other non-competitive states. Perhaps a better contemporary argument for the Electoral College is that it has a tendency to produce clear winners. This contrasts with the popular vote, which remains relatively close in nearly all presidential contests. In 2008, for example, Obama won only 53 percent of the popular vote but more than two-thirds of the electoral vote. The Electoral College, as it typically does, helped to magnify the scope of the incoming presidentБs victory. For someone taking on the highest-profile job in the world, this additional legitimacy boost may be no small thing.