Is the Electoral college outdated?

Kilian (For)

With recent elections causing controversy, like those of 2000 and 2016, people have since

questioned whether or not the electoral college is an archaic remnant of our forefather’s time.

There is, perhaps, an argument one could make as to why this may be the case. However, with a

bit of research and a deeper understanding of our political system, it is clear that the electoral

college was, and is, a needed mechanism in the operation of our republic. One of the most cited

reasons for why the electoral college is essential is because if it were abolished, candidates

would pander to the most populous states and leave to the wolves smaller ones, such as South

Carolina and New Hampshire. There would be no need to rally and campaign in states who hold

barely any sway, instead those running would focus their energies on states like New York and

California, gratifying only a certain type of voter. Another reason why the electoral college is not

outdated is that it holds together our party structure. Not all are fond of the two-party system in

which we operate, but to abolish the electoral college would be to invite any number of splinter

parties to be able to win the presidency with a small percentage of the electorate. In a situation

where there is a plurality of candidates, one could win with only five or ten percent of the

national vote. The electoral college has often been complained about in contemporary politics, but

it is a necessary and fundamental part of our democracy.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college

Ivan (Against)

Article 2 of the Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment established the electoral procedure for voting

when the timely dissemination of accurate information to voters over all of the U.S. was virtually

impossible. The clause was then designed in part to protect against an uneducated electorate and to

provide proportional representation to all states thus preventing candidates from pandering to only the

most populous states. However, we now live when information about candidates is widely and

immediately available. Furthermore, PBS News Hour reported that both candidates in the 2016 election

"made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits,

nearly two-thirds took place in the four battlegrounds with the most electoral votes," which seems to

suggest the electoral system has done nothing to stop pandering to a few states.

The main problem with the electoral system is that it ignores the voice of the common people. The writers

of the Constitution assumed a privileged status (based on outdated notions of class) for the electoral

college. Considering current problems with the disenfranchisement of voters based on class, race,

gender, and sexuality, a system that further distances them from the process seems antiquated and

contravenes another important caveat of our nation’s history, that “all men are created equal” (and

women). In a time when we have access to the information we need and where the most populous states

already hold the power of electoral votes, let all people speak by allowing popular majority to be our

measure for the election system.

Article 2-- https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii

Twelfth Amendment-- https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-

xii

Sam Weber and Laura Fong, "This System Calls for Popular Vote to Determine Winner," pbs.org, Nov. 6,

2016