Political Science Essays on Why Is The Electoral College Controversial?

The critics of the Electoral College argue that it should be abolished based on its many disadvantages. One of these disadvantages includes the fact that it could result in undemocratic results. A perfect example for this case is that a presidential candidate can emerge the winner in terms of majority votes globally but lose under the Electoral College. Additionally, critics claim that the Electoral College influences the presidential candidates to pay little or no attention to the citizens during campaigns (Villegas 3). Normally most states are majorly democrats or republican and thus the Electoral College dictates that the presidential candidates should spend most of the energy and resources in the few influential states, with roughly even numbers of registered Republican and Democrats. Therefore, the presidential candidates ignore the minority concerns, for instance, the civil rights, racial disparities, and immigrant reforms. They also ignore the issue relating to major towns for instance poverty and inadequate housing due to high costs. According to Villegas (7), the electoral college critics also argue that base on these concerns, the electoral college should be abolished and reforms should allow the establishment of a National Popular Vote, they argue that a National Popular Vote will not only be more democratic but also for the presidential aspirants to considerate of all citizens and address their concerns equally.

Those defending the Electoral College, on the other hand, argues a response of the criticism by rejecting the idea of the National Popular Vote and supporting the Electoral College’s federalism. The defenders argue that the National Popular Vote would go against the constitution as its establishment would evade the amendment criteria. Under the National Popular Vote, States are required to give out their Electoral College delegates to the global vote’s winner rather than in their state. The defenders attack this idea as it goes against the intent of the constitution framers. The defender of the Electoral College also argues that the National Popular Vote would distort the state’s federalism. They claim that the national popular vote preserves that national power by ensuring that each nation attains two Electoral College delegates, irrespective of the nation’s populations and by considering political and the media attention on these states, instead of the entire nation. A National Popular Vote, therefore, would inhibit this federalism’s guarantee as all that counts is the global vote’s winner and not the decisions made by populations of every nation. Moreover, the National Popular Vote would prevent presidential aspirants from focusing on the whole country, and instead focus on the states that have the largest citizens.

I agree with the view that the Electoral College should be abolished as it is an antiquated framework that was established to deny the citizens a position in the government. The Electoral College inhibits democracy by depriving the citizens their right of electing their leaders directly. The Electoral College is also based on the fact the president is not elected through popular votes and this makes the majority’s will insignificant. Therefore, the implication is that the citizens do not support the presidency and lack the vital nation support, a core factor without which any presidential term would be substantially crippled. The Electoral College also destroys the presidential campaigns as they take place in the swing states that have large and more urban states, ignoring the minor states. The minor states, therefore, lack adequate power in the electro process and system and thus their voices and needs are unrecognized, which further undermines democracy. With all these factors in mind, the Electoral College promotes unfairness and unpredictability in the electoral system and thus should be abolished.

Work Cited

Villegas, Christina. “Electing the People’s President: The Popular Origins of the Electoral

College.” Perspectives on Political Science (2017): 1-9.