|
The
Case for Reform
When the Founders concluded on the compromise
that sparked the Electoral College, they definitely had relevant
reasons to do so. Communications
technology, modes of transportation and education were all very low,
limiting the ability of the public to make a well-informed judgment
about any one presidential candidate, and therefore, a well-informed
decision on the best man for the Presidency.
However, today’s conditions during an
election are much different. Candidates
are able to travel from state to state with ease, the internet and
television allow us to get to know the candidates even when
they’re not in our state, literacy and education levels are
commonly higher, among many other advancements.
Our country is more equipped to handle direct election of the
President very responsibly.
Beyond the reasons for its creation lie the reasons why it makes our democratic system
unhealthy. The Electoral
College favors certain states over others. Most will say that
this discriminatory nature of the institution protects the interests
of small states that would otherwise be overshadowed by the
interests of larger, more populous states. However, small
state interests are already protected in the Senate, as every state
has an equal number of Senators, despite population. The
Electoral College, then, only multiplies this overrepresentation for
small states and, in effect, overshadows the interests of larger
states, which harbor more of the nations population.
One could also say that the Electoral College
is unbalanced in the way that it favors big states, by allocating a massive amount of
voting power because their higher populations give them more
electoral votes. Either way, as a
result of its discrimination of certain states, the Electoral
College forces presidential candidates to campaign in only a few select
(swing states) as they
battle for specific electoral votes, instead of battling for a
nationwide public mandate.
And at its base, the Electoral College is an inherent
evil because of its common tendency to disenfranchise voters.
In the states that the candidates do no campaigning in
(because they state is decidedly preferring one candidate over
another), those who cast their vote for the candidate their state
does not favor has no need of voting at all.
By the time the votes are tallied and the winner of the state
is awarded all of that state’s electoral votes (except in Maine
and Nebraska), every vote for a losing candidate means nothing and
does not count.
Back
to top
Electoral
College Football: CBS News explores some of the not so impossible
possibilities of the extremely close 2004 election
LA
Times Commentary: the Electoral College votes against equality
The
Modesto Bee: California takes a jab at the Electoral College
The
Case Against the Electoral College: an article by Steven Hill
and Rob Richie from The Center for Voting and Democracy
Flunk
the Electoral College: an article by The Center's John B.
Anderson
North
Lake Tahoe Bonanza: Time to Change the Electoral College?:
Editor Jonathan Maziarz explores the issue
Electoral
College Table of Contents
|
