The electoral college is a system by which the votes of the people in presidential elections are counted, and then given to a small group in each state to vote whatever way they want. This not only takes away the fundamental right to have our vote count, but it insults the intelligence of Americans, implying that we are not intelligent enough to elect our own president without the intervention of politicians. This and several other reasons, to be enumerated later, contribute to my view that the electoral college is a breach of the rights of citizens to have a say in the way in which they are governed and should be abolished.

The electoral college effectively nullifies the votes of many voters. This happens because the electors vote, and then all the states electoral votes go to the candidate selected by the majority of electors. Thus, even if the electors follow the will of the people, the minority will have no effect on the overall outcome, even if they are in actuality the majority, but are smaller in most states, or even simply large states. Consider this scenario: a candidate wins Texas, California, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New York, Michigan, Arizona, Illinois, Maine, Iowa, and Washington, all by around a 5 percent majority, and the other candidate won all the others states by a majority of about 15 to 20 percent. The second candidate has gained more popular votes, but still loses because the first won the most electoral votes. The votes of the minority in the first candidates states are nullified because they did not win, and because of this the president who is clearly not the president by will of the people is elected. Because of this phenomenon, I would estimate that more than just the 1876 and 2000 election were won without the will of the people. Now, I recognize that this scenario is quite rare and unlikely in its occurrence, but it is a valid argument against the electoral college for two reasons. First, a scenario like it could easily happen, and be different only in differences in votes and in states won. Second, no matter how rare this is, it could happen without unreasonably unnatural circumstances in place, and thus is a great threat to American rule by the people, a concept countless thousands have dedicated their lives to. If the electoral college was abolished, the chance of this scenario occurring would be reduced astronomically.

The electoral college also gives far too much power to the few. The advantage of this is that it will keep the majority, which could be misinformed or ignorant, from making a wrong decision. This is the insult to the intelligence of Americans, which through the ages has been proven to be vast, as it implies that we are perpetually ignorant and misinformed, and can thus never be trusted to elect our own president. Thus, even the advantage of this rule is marred by the clear disdain for the general populous, which cannot be tolerated in a government that is even somewhat democratic, as is our nation. The disadvantages of rule by the few, however, outweigh the advantages of such a system, even without the mark against it that this system already has been shown to have. In rule by the few, the ruling class may easily be bribed or intimidated into voting a certain way. They may also be influenced by personal political preferences going against the will of the people. This is how the election of 2000 and of 1876 were stolen, through the personal views of the electors, which went against the will of the people. As Mark Twain said, �Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." This is the second problem of rule by the few, especially in a nation that is under the misconception that it is a democracy, or is at least supposed to be, when in reality it is simply a hybrid of democracy and republic. The few may not, and in fact have a good chance, of not having public sentiment on their side.

The supporters of the electoral college argue several things about the electoral college. The argument I hear most often is the statement that if the electoral college did not have authority over the outcome of the presidential election, candidates would not campaign in or for smaller states. This is not compelling for several reasons. First, it does not actually equalize the votes, it simply reduces the number to a smaller number. It assigns an electoral vote per a certain number of citizens, which simply reduces the number of votes handled. Thus, candidates still have the same incentive to campaign to states as they did before. This brings me to my second point, which is that most candidates will go to small states to either avoid competition, or , if another candidate has started to campaign there, they come there to counter a stranglehold on that state�s votes, electoral or otherwise. Thus, candidates will campaign to small states with or without the electoral votes. Another argument that I have heard is that it reduces the margin of error in vote counting. To this, I will say simply that the electoral college is a voting error: it forgets several thousand votes of every state. Another argument that I have heard is that as not all citizens vote, the electoral college helps to fill in the gaps, essentially making the minds of the nonvoters up for them. To this I would say that it does more than this; it makes up the minds of everyone who does not wish to vote for the candidate to the opposite viewpoint. Many supporters of the electoral college argue that as the government of the US is mostly based on republicanism, the democratic concept of giving power to the common man is irrelevant. I agree that this is what the founding fathers say, but this argument forgets one key detail: the founding fathers were mere humans, capable of error. They also argue that the constitution provides for the electoral college and supports it. Well, this same document also upheld slavery, discrimination, and the repression of a woman�s right to vote. Unless those who argue for the electoral college based on the constitution are prepared to say that slavery, racial discrimination, and denial of a woman�s right to vote are good and right policies, and that the constitution is subsequently infallible, than the argument that the constitution says so and thus it should be so, is invalid. This is due to the fact that the constitution can and should be changed, a concept proven by the issues above and by the prohibition. If the abovementioned defenders of the electoral college wish to go even further and say that the constitution was not written to be amended, can go to the constitution itself: �The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,� states article five of the constitution. That shows quite plainly ,even within the constitution, that the document was written to be changed when it was deemed necessary by the majority. John Samples of the Cato Foundation asks this question: �What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn�t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders� handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That�s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?� It is true that our public servants are not elected on the principle of one person, one vote, but to Samples� statement that if this system was abolished, it would follow by consistency to abolish the senate, I would disagree. The purpose of the senate is to let the common man tend to his own business so that he does not need to always be debating and voting on issues as a senator does. The senator is elected, but can be removed from office if he is not following the will of his people. Thus, it is in his best interest to follow the will of his constituents, as whether or not he was democratically elected by them, he can be democratically impeached and removed from office. This is not true of the president, who is impeached and removed from office based off of only serious wrongdoing, not based off of going against the will of the people. The president is not only harder to remove from office, but he is less democratically elected than senators and congressmen.

If the electoral college is kept for a long enough period, it will eventually become corrupt and regress into a monarchy of sorts, only simply ruled by more than one man. This is the way a government �By the people, for the people, and of the people� does perish from the earth. This will also keep on building on the list of stolen elections, until the people can take no more, and a revolution, violent or non-violent, takes place, disrupting the governmental process for an extended amount of time. This system is also antiquated and will clearly lead to more and more anger among the general populous based simply off of the policies made by unwanted officials. This sequence of events has already been shown to be starting by the protest of the 2000 election after Bush was elected without the will of the people. The constitution was written to be changed, and this is one of the greatest reasons for this