You are on page 1of 4

Bergstrom 1

Cheyenne Bergstrom
Mrs. Hawkins
American Government P. 2
October 15, 2014
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished Many years after the United States was
founded, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the new nation would govern itself;
they later came to settle on the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a system in which the
president and vice president are chosen indirectly. In general, the delegates did not believe that a
direct popular vote was acceptable, however that it should be decided by the US senators and
representatives instead. The way in which it works: a candidate must receive a majority of the
electoral votes to be officially declared president. If no candidate obtains a majority, the US
Representatives selects the president from the top three contenders; this means each state
receives one vote. In no way does this solution of choosing our country's president, involve the
citizens. This compromise leaves many people unhappy and undercuts the basic principle of a
representative government. The Electoral College should be abolished because small states
are unrepresented, there are countless flaws in the system, and it is not accurate based on
peoples votes.
Electoral votes by state are often complicated and unfair, this leaves us with the
unjust representation of small states. The lowest number of electoral votes that a state may
have is three which includes two senators and one representative. The number of representatives
determines how many electoral votes that state will receive. During election time the majority of
state votes usually goes to candidate A, it is not likely that they will go to candidate B.

Bergstrom 2

Nonetheless those few votes that get cast to candidate B could be all that he/she really needs. It
is stated in Document A that a candidate is not able to win if he/she has no support in any
of these regions because in order to win the election overall, they must win at least two
major regions. For example, the Southwest and Northeast. The smallest number of states that
a candidate could win in the Electoral College would be eleven and that includes 270 votes
(Document A). This is unfair because eleven is not even half of the states. It is often argued
that the Electoral College requires candidates to visit the smaller states who would not be
of much importance if the election was conducted by popular vote (video). This would
provide more authority to the states with smaller majority, for example Wyoming, who represents
500,000 voters. They have the same amount of say as the 55 representatives who apply to
California. Nonetheless this is a complicated system and is unfair for the larger states and the
lesser ones to be represented in the same way.
The Electoral College has many flaws in its system. It is very undemocratic for a
nation that calls themselves democratic, and it also doesn't give a chance to a third-party
candidate. As seen in Document B we have Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, who were
both close in popular votes, then if we take a look at electoral votes it doesn't even compare.
Even though the popular vote was somewhat close, however the electoral vote was distorted and
Reagan won in a landslide. John B. Anderson had zero percent in electoral votes, which dropped
him out of the election. This shows that third-party candidates truly have no chance. Due to the
winner take all method of allocating electors, it has been difficult for third-party or
independent candidates to gain traction in presidential politics (video). As for being a
democratic nation, it doesn't make much sense that we the people, who vote, don't actually get to
pick who wins the election. A democracy is a system of government by the whole population or

Bergstrom 3

all of the eligible members of the state, so why is this being decided by only a few people from
the state. It doesn't make sense that we are able to vote for everything else, but when it comes to
the election our votes don't actually count. Since each state gets one vote in the House, this is
highly undemocratic. If everyone knew what the Electoral College was surely about, they
wouldn't be pleased with it (Document F). There are many flaws in the system, and they are
not just minor ones.
Last, it is not accurate based on peoples votes, and violates political equality. This
process of electing a president is unjust and is not based off of the peoples views. In Document
D the chart provided illustrates how some of the electoral votes favor some states over
others; for example the twelve states listed and the district of Columbia seem to have a
bigger say in the presidential election process than the citizens of Illinois. This itself is unfair
because Illinois deserves to have an accurate representation of their votes, the same as other
states do. This shows that the Electoral College undercuts the principle of one person, one vote,
and therefore violates political equality. It is not a neutral counting device... it favors some
citizens over others, depending solely upon the state in which voters cast their votes for
president (Document D). Political equality means all citizens are equal and it also allows
citizens to partake in state affairs, including the right to vote and the right to challenge elections.
However the Electoral College violates the principle of this for the fact that it weighs some
citizens votes more heavily than others (video). Generally it makes no sense for the people to
vote if theyre not even counted, and either way it violates their rights.
In conclusion, the Electoral College should be abolished because small states are
unrepresented, there are many flaws in the system, and it is not accurate based on people's votes.
Overall there seems to be no need for it, it was made for the reason that back then they thought it

Bergstrom 4

was a simple way of choosing a president, but really it just causes problems and does not
represent the candidates or voters fairly. If America is truly about equality and democracy, then
they will abolish the Electoral College and let the people have a say.