Should We Abolish the Electoral College?

The 2008 Presidential Election is just around the corner, and the race is on. Issues such as the War in Iraq, Universal Healthcare, and the price of gas have come to the forefront of election talk, but there is another issue that plays peek-a-boo during every presidential election. The debate over the abolishment of the Electoral College has been argued since the ink first dried on the U.S. Constitution. The most high-profile example took place during the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. You might remember that Bush won the election expressly based on the votes of the Electoral College. Had the decision been made by popular vote, the outcome would have been different. We would have had a different president, and the past eight years might have been drastically altered. With so much progress being made in all fields of American life, shouldn't our election process also receive an upgrade? To decide this we must examine the original purpose of the Electoral College, and its relevance to today's society.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution made provisions for a select group of electors to vote for the president. The term Electoral College wasn't used until the 1800s, and it wasn't formally written into law until 1845. The official term, as used in the U.S. Code, is College of Electors. This group, originally nameless, was, like most of the Constitution, devised as a form of compromise. Many believed that the President should be elected by Congress. Others, fearful that Congress would take advantage of this power, suggested that popular vote was the best mode. However, on September 6, 1787 the committee voted and approved a proposal sanctioning a select group to go to the polls.

Each state determines the method in which they nominate electoral candidates, whether it be in a primary or at a party convention. Electors may not hold federal office while serving as an elector. The number of electors from each state is equal to the amount of Senators and Representatives in that state. Also, Washington D.C. is allowed to hold the same amount of electors as the smallest state. During the presidential election, the electors cast two votes. One is for president, while the other is for vice-president. Both presidential and vice-presidential candidates must secure at least 270 votes to win. In the event that that does not happen, the president will be determined by the House of Representatives, whereas the vice-president is determined by the Senate.

Each elector pledges to cast their vote based on the wishes of the people in that elector's district; however, that does not always happen. It is in this way that President Bush was able to defeat Al Gore in 2000. Electors that do not vote the way they have pledged are called faithless electors, and many states have invoked laws that punish such electors.

There are many arguments against the Electoral College. The main point of contention being the fact that electors can vote against the popular vote. Another point is that many presidential candidates spend too much of their time campaigning in swing states (states that don't undoubtedly favor one candidate over the other) and not enough time in other states. Many feel that with the Electoral College in place, their vote isn't necessary, and therefore they don't vote. Others hate the fact that states are allowed to disenfranchise certain voters (such as in the past when they discouraged blacks from voting in the South or current states refusing to let felons vote). Others argue that the Electoral College gives more voting power to smaller states and discourages third-party campaigns.

The arguments in favor of the College of Electors are just as fervent. James Madison reasoned that the U.S. Constitution governed with a mixture of both state and population driven power. Many feel that abolishing the Electoral College detracts from the original design. Many also feel that this system requires the candidate to seek support nationwide. The Electoral College also gives a stronger voice to minority groups, and many feel that it stabilizes the two-party system.

There have been over 700 proposals for changing the voting system with all manner of new electoral methods. The most recent, the Every Vote Counts Amendment, has been proposed twice. Once in 2004 and once again in 2007. This amendment would abolish the Electoral College, and elections would then be determined by popular vote. Many states are in favor of this amendment, but there are still many holdouts.

The Electoral College was originally seen as a good compromise during the tumultuous framing of the U.S. Constitution. While it was originally seen as a fair way of determining the future Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the United States, many believe that this system has become antiquated. When used in the manner for which it was intended, the electoral process is beautiful and mostly fair. However, the system can be abused, and where is the fairness in that? There are many brilliant arguments both for and against our current election process, but I think everyone can agree that we shouldn't expect it to change any time soon.

Electoral College: Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

U.S. Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm