Robert Richards
Mrs. Dailey
English I Honors
1 February 2002
Reform the Electoral College
The Electoral College. What is it? What is its use? The answer to the latter of the two is: It has no use. The colonists who first established the country needed it because people back then were not as educated as people are today. There are some positive aspects to the Electoral College, however, the negative aspects greatly outweigh them. Even though no actions have been taken, thoughts about reform have been circulating since the 1970s, and have greatly increased due to the election of 2000. Overall, the Electoral College needs to be changed.
The Electoral College is the constitution system that provides for the election of the president of the United States. Each party within a state elects a slate of electors numerically equal to the state’s congressional delegation. When Americans vote for president and vice president, they are actually voting for slates of electors pledged to their candidates (Burdette 1). Delegates are chosen in three ways. (1) State legislatures choose the electors, (2) electors are selected by the people of each congressional district, and (3) popular vote was held in the entire state, and the winner took all electoral votes (Wikman 2).
Most delegates when framing the Constitution of the United States did not think that the American democracy had matured enough to offer a direct vote (Wikman 1) because the American people were not nearly as educated as people today. Three systems were introduced to the framers, but the Electoral College system was the best of the three. Even though the Electoral College system was not perfect, the other two systems had serious problems that made them unfavorable. For example, one choice was to have Congress elect the president, but the president might feel obligated to help Congress get certain laws passed by not vetoing them, which would “put a dent in the checks and balances system” (Wikman 1), and the aforementioned direct vote system was not acceptable because people were uneducated.
Probably the most notable positive aspect of the Electoral College is the fact that it is simple. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes, and whichever candidate gets the majority of votes in a state gets all of the electoral votes for that state. Also, the Electoral College tends to enforce a two-party structure, which also makes the decision of who one is going to vote for simpler. If there happens to be a third party, it is usually one who has a candidate who has almost no chance of winning.
The negative qualities associated with the Electoral College, on the other hand, are much more numerous. First of all, a presidential candidate could win the electoral vote and not the popular vote (Wikman 3). In 1824, John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson, although he only received 30.9 percent of the popular vote, with Jackson getting 41.3 percent (History 3). The electoral vote was actually tied, but the House of Representatives voted for John Quincy Adams. Next, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel J. Tilden after only receiving 48 percent of the popular vote (whereas Tilden received 51 percent), but receiving 185 of the 369 electoral votes, one more than Tilden (History 1-2). Also, in 1888, Benjamin Harrison only received 47.8 percent of the popular vote while Grover Cleveland obtained 48.6 percent (History 7). No problems occurred for 112 years, but 2000 brought more election controversy. Al Gore lost the electoral vote by seven, but outscored George W. Bush in the popular vote 48.4 percent to 47.8 percent (History 4-6).In addition, if a third party just happens to be strong enough to get a majority of votes in a state, it could steal votes from the two main candidates, which might skew the results (Kienitz 2). For example, Ross Perot was voted for by 19 percent of the population, taking away votes from both Clinton and George Bush in the 1992 election (History 8). In the history of the United States, a third-party candidate has never won an election, but has possibly changed the results numerous times.
Three main reform options have surfaced over the years: substitution of direct popular vote for the president, or “Pure Popular Vote,” “Popular Vote with Runoff Election,” and “Proportional Electoral Vote” (Kienitz 4). The “Pure Popular Vote” reform has some advantages. It upholds the principle of “one person, one vote” (Kienitz 3), it shows the true opinion of the nation as to whom should become president, and presidential candidates would not campaign in a certain area to try to get a large number of electoral votes. Yet, the practical difficulty of achieving it by constitutional amendment puts it in check. Small states usually favor retention of the Electoral College, reasoning that it tends to increase the relative weight of the small states (Burdette 2). Moreover, it does little to solve the problems having to do with a two-party system. Split votes can become a real problem if two similar candidates divide the vote of those who agree with them, then a dissimilar candidate gets the plurality of the votes (Kienitz 3).
Another reform option that has been mentioned several times is the “Popular Vote with Runoff Election” reform. It is basically just a popular vote election, but instead of holding primary elections, a free-for-all election is held, which is in turn followed by an election for the two top vote-getters (Kienitz 3). The advantages of this are very similar to the “Pure Popular Vote,” but it also adds the advantage of “reducing the control of entrenched political parties over elections, so that independent candidates have more opportunity” (Kienitz 3). The disadvantages are similar to the “Pure Popular Vote” as well. One addition is that there may be a difference in who votes between the free-for-all and the runoff (Kienitz 3).
Lastly, the “Proportional Electoral Vote” reform is probably the best option. It would work like this: “If a state had ten electoral votes, and candidate A received 70 percent of the popular vote, candidate B received 18 percent, and candidate C received, 12 percent, then A would get 7
electoral votes, B would get 2, and C would get 1” (Wikman 3). It would also “eliminate many present inequities of the all-or-none allocation of at-large electoral votes” (Burdette 2). Nevertheless, there are some disadvantages. First off, it might weaken the two-party system (Burdette 2), and mainly, if one candidate got exactly15 percent of the popular vote, and the other got exactly 85 percent, 1.5 electoral votes and 8.5 electoral votes could not be handed out to each candidate respectively.
Overall, the Electoral College needs to be changed, but there are many ways to accomplish that. What the government needs to do is look at the reform options, i.e. the popular vote, popular vote with runoff election, and the representation of popular vote by electoral votes. The system was a great thing in the 1700s, but now it has become obsolete. It needs to be changed.
Burdette, Franklin L. “Electoral College.” Encyclopedia Americana. Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier, 2001.
History Central. “Elections Central.” 2002. Multieducator, Inc. 20 January 2002. <http://www.multied.com/election>.
Kienitz, Paul. “Electoral College Reform Options.” 26 August 2001. NP 1 January 2002. <http://gning.net/electoral.html>.
Wikman, Eric. “The Electoral College: Then, Now, and Tomorrow.” 1999 NP 1 January 2002. <http://www.wikman.com/eric/electoralcollege.html>.