Dismantling the Electoral College

Whenever college students discuss Electoral College voting system, they often support the reasons for its existence. However, one of the ideas for creating it was to reduce the anxiety between the population and the selection of the president. Another reason is that the United States has made it as part of her structure to give additional power to the smaller states (Kim 90). In recent times, I changed my point of view, and believed it is time to put an end to the Electoral College because it does not go in line with democratic practice, and most times, it gives room for the election of a candidate who does not win the popular votes. Besides, winner takes all system makes it possible for candidates who lose popular vote to become president by winning the Electoral College. Thus, this paper will outline why it is important to put an end to Electoral College.

The winner-takes-all system

It is a well-known fact that candidates who lose the popular vote can win the Electoral College under the winner-take-all system. A third-party candidate may win enough Electoral Votes to keep any major party from winning. However, when no candidate receives enough votes to win, the winner is decided by the House of Representatives (Kim 95).

According to Myeongsik Kim, the winner-takes-all system of voting will always disorganize the outcome of the election. Conversely, what happened to Democrat Al Gore in 2000 clearly shows that it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College. The result of the election came out that Gore was second in the electoral vote, and he got more popular votes than Bush, thus, making him the first person since Grover Cleveland in 1888 that won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College (122).

Rural areas would get ignored

 Edward emphasized that Electoral College is an undemocratic system of voting that should be abolished because it changes election results, making many people feel like they are not relevant, and they don’t have a say. It also forces candidates to work totally for the purpose of winning votes in some states that could be easily won by both Democratic and Republican presidential candidate through a swing in votes (14).  Conversely, these states are usually targeted by major-party campaigns, most especially in competitive elections, and this wouldn’t change America for the better. Most of these candidates spend a lot of their campaign time in 10 or 12 states instead of 30, 40, or 50 states because of the Electoral College (Kim 123)…………………………………….


Leave a Comment