All News Local News State News National News World News Space News
Audio Video Photos Photo Galleries Old Photo Archives
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Statement of Ethics Contact Us
Content Muncie Businesses Browse Index / Sitemap
Polls Editorials / Columns Muncie Blogs Muncie Forums

MFP Tags: Two Party System, Presidential Elections, Popular Vote, Electoral CollegeTopics: Education

Let's Get Rid of the Anti-Democratic Electoral College

In order to make our political system more democratic it is time for Americans to consider putting away the archaic electoral college.  This thing, built into our constitution by the founders of our nation, might have had some value in our early years, but it is long since served its purpose.  Now, the electoral college is an unnecessary encumbrance and sometimes anti-democratic part of our presidential-election process.

I’m aware that there are a number of arguments for and against the electoral college.  In order to keep this post to a reasonable length, I’m going to deal with just three arguments against the electoral college that I consider most worthwhile. 

First is the possibility of electing a president that receives fewer votes than her or his opponent.  To the best of my knowledge, this has happened four times in our history.  In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college vote to John Quincy Adams.  In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by over 264,000 votes but lost the election by one electoral-college vote.  In 1888, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by over 95,000 votes but lost the electoral college to Benjamin Harrison.  In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by over a half million votes, but lost the electoral-college vote to George W. Bush.  It seems to me that in a democratic society, we should find a way to put into office the person that most voters want in office. 

The second argument against the electoral college is that it sometimes tends to discourage voter turnout.  Suppose your preference for president is the Republican candidate, but you live in a state that you know will be certain to go for the Democrat.  That, of course, means that all your state’s electoral votes will go to the democrat and your vote for president will be totally lost.  If that is the case, you may elect not to vote in that election.  Of course, in the case I have outlined here, there are other candidates on the ballot whose election your vote might impact.  But, if you are interested primarily in the presidential election, you may feel it is not worth your time to vote.

A third argument against the electoral college is that it discourages third-party candidates and tends to prop up the two party system.  Consider that a third party candidate might win as much as 25 or 30 percent of the popular vote and if those votes were spread out across the nation, that candidate might not receive even one electoral-college vote.  That same vote, in a system where popular vote elects the president, might have a major impact on who gets elected, and thereby giving those third-party voters a good deal more influence on our political dialogue.  

I know that occasionally a third party candidate has had a major impact on our presidential election (Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 come to mind).  However, in our history we have had many third party candidates, and they have very little impact on the outcome of our presidential elections. 

I might also note that those who favor the electoral college say the inhibition of third parties is a plus.  They say it makes our system more stable.  I say it make the system less democratic.  

There are a number of ways to get around the electoral college.  The most obvious is a constitutional amendment to remove the electoral college from our constitution.  Constitutional amendments are difficult, as they should be.  So, it is unlikely that this is going to happen soon.   

Another way to get eliminate the impact of the electoral college is for individual states to pass a law requiring their electors to vote for the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationally, regardless of how their state vote goes.  Some states are considering this kind of legislation.  Alternatively, a state could require its electors to vote for the in the same percentage as the popular vote.  Thus, if the popular vote when 51 percent Republican and 49 percent Democratic, electors would be required to in the same percentage for the Republican and the Democrat.            



Post new comment

Google