I side firmly with the “con” argument against abolishing the electoral college. I believe Busch & Shafer cut to the heart of the argument when they stated that the main detractors of the electoral college object due to its perceived unfair nature and its contribution to partisan politics (Ellis & Nelson, ed., 2021). Busch & Shafer then ask a very simple question; how would any of the changes offered by critics impact these same concerns of the electoral college critics? (Ellis & Nelson, ed. 2021). This very inciteful question is at the center of my argument. It does not require an in-depth investigation to discover the political acrimony present in today’s hyper-partisan climate. If the electoral college was abolished and some form of popular vote emerged, it would greatly exacerbate this problem and could be a precursor to acts of violence. It is well known that the highest population centers are on the West and East coast regions that are dominated by one political ideology, whereas the central states and the South generally are dominated by the rival ideology. If popular vote alone were the determiner of the Presidential election, then one party’s voice would dominate when choosing the President. States with lower populations would feel subjugated to the whims of individuals with whom they have clear ideological differences. The current system certainly is not perfect, but it allows for individuals who come from regions with lower population to feel like they have a voice in the system. Abolishing their “say” in elections would amount to sparking the same rage that fueled the American Revolution, “No taxation without representation.” In the end, in most cases the winner of the popular vote has won the presidency with notable exceptions in recent elections. These exceptions, I believe, are indicative of the heightened polarization of the nation in certain regions. The electoral college tempers most violent flare-ups post-election because the populace feels that, win or lose, their candidate had a fair shot at winning. Remove the appearance of equitable results and mix in the perception that the election was tilted in favor of a political party that has opposing ideology, and anarchy will ensue. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton lost the election but won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. The vote count in Los Angeles County alone nearly accounts for the popular vote victory by Clinton (FEC, 2016). Imagine the anger that would be demonstrated if a plurality of the states felt that their President was determined by one county in California! The electoral college gives voice to those who, under any other system, would be drowned out by single counties in large states.
Works Cited
Ellis, Richard, and Michael Nelson. Debating the Presidency. London: Sage Publishing, 2021. Pp 63-65.
Walther, Steven (Chair). FEC. “Election Results for the U.S. Presidency, 2016” Federal Election Commission Report, 2016. Free public resource.
Hi Tim,
It was very interesting to read your arguments in favor of the Electoral College, as I am adamantly against it, but found it beneficial to see the subject from the other point of view. I think you make some excellent points that I had not considered before, but I feel that your points could be justified by the opposing side of the argument, as well. For instance, you stated that the electoral college gives voice to those who are drowned out by those living in larger counties, which may be true, but doesn’t this simultaneously mean that those living in the larger counties don’t have as much of a voice as those living in the smaller, rural areas? Why should someone’s vote count for less just because they choose to live in a larger county/city? Yes, states like New York and California have been blue for a while now and likely will continue to be in the future, but this could always change. A primary example of this is Georgia and how it turned blue for the first time in forever. This could happen to any other state at any point in time. Also, I feel that the Electoral College is discouraging to voters in non-swing states because they have the mentality that their vote does not matter because their state will cast all of their votes to whichever candidate aligns with their political affiliation. Interested to hear your thoughts!
I agree full-heartedly Riley. Many proponent of the Electoral College cite rural areas as being hurt in a democratic system, and that the EC protects them. But what about all of the rural voters in California who are currently drowned out by the large urban centers? I suppose that those who argue for the rights of rural voters in an EC system only care about the rights of some rural voters. In a popular vote system, every vote would be equal. Rural voters in states dominated by large urban centers would take solace knowing their vote would actually count towards something rather than relying on the rural voters worth more than them in other states to make the right decision.
Seneca,
Actually, California is much more evenly split into those rural areas than you say. While there are a few counties that do lean more Republican, there was only a small amount that had a 1-20% approval rate for Trump in 2020. That aside, I believe that in uncompetitive states, where there is a somewhat political minority, give that group an opportunity to truly engage in the political process. It is easy to stay uninvolved when you are surrounded by people with the same political outlook, but getting away from that gives citizens a better way to get engaged and actually participate in the political process which would be good for everyone. Whether or not people do that is their choice, but it would be the best outcome.
California’s Political Geography
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-political-geography/
Thanks for posting Tim. I think an interesting point is that currently the EC doesn’t actually fully account for population, states with much smaller populations can overhaul thousands of peoples votes because of how the EC counts votes using Senators standard two seats. While I do understand the point you make; as someone from a small state, I think that joining my vote with everyone else across the country who has voted the same way actually presents more control over elections that what the current standard is. Alaska’s three votes are not swing votes, Presidential candidates or even Presidents rarely make it up here. Because so much power is vested in the state and not in the individuals, candidates spend time trying to ensure the votes of certain counties to swing an entire state and then an entire election. If I vote for Party B and only one hundred thousand other people across the state do, all our votes are considered a wash in the current system. But if I vote for Party B and 5 million other people across the country also do, I feel like that is a better representation of free and fair, of election by popular vote.
I really like how you set up your argument; asking those opposed to the electoral college what better solution they have and then pointing out how their ideas would lead to a fair worse situation. I agree that votes are made more meaningless in small states when one mega church in California could resolve to vote for a candidate and effectively null and void the entire city of Fairbanks, Alaska.
Hey Tim!
I feel there are numerous reforms we can put in place that would easily and handily serve the problems that abolishing the Electoral College would bring about. As an Alaskan, I’m sure you are familiar with Rank Choice Voting? This system fits perfectly (almost as if it was made for this very problem) into every problem you describe, from mediating hyper-partisan concerns to making sure all winning candidates receive a majority of the vote.
Nobody is saying that abolishing the Electoral College will not leave problems in its wake; the destruction of any part of a system as large as the US government will obviously leave holes which need to be filled. There are things that we can do to address those problems.
Moving on to your concern over smaller communities being represented, I would hazard a guess that no parties would dominate in such a system. Many people feel disenfranchised under the Electoral College and don’t vote as a result (it is common knowledge that voter participation in the US lags far behind that of our developed neighbors). Imagine how many smaller, underserved communities in California would actually go out and vote if they knew their vote would not be drowned out, and would instead be added to a national popular vote? The change brought about by a popular vote system would in all likelihood increase voter participation rather than hamper it in the communities you describe. Yes, the votes in big urban areas would count more than they do now, but that is because they would count the same as every small town in the heartland. Rural voters would actually be campaigned for across the country rather than the paltry few which are appealed to now.
In a popular vote system, every vote would count and would be important to a winning strategy. The energized votes of rural America would be equal to the votes of urban centers in a final tally. It would make candidates less partisan, as they would be forced to appeal to all voters rather than a select few. We would probably see the birth of the national campaign rather than the selective campaigning done in present times. Abolishing the Electoral College in a smart way (with an eye towards reform, replacing the guardrails left behind in a democratic fashion) would only lead to the betterment of our current electoral system, ensuring that all people’s, along with their votes, are equal under the law.