The Electoral College system comprises of the complex system of state and federal laws as well as constitutional provisions under which American voters elect the President and Vice President. The system has continuously developed since the first presidential elections. It has delivered undisputed election results in the majority of the presidential elections that have taken place; selecting the candidate with the most popular votes despite close contests. However, in some cases, candidates who got fewer popular votes than their principal opponents were elected. For instance, in 2000 George W. Bush won the election despite receiving fewer popular votes than his principal opponent Al Gore, Jr. In another case, four candidates split the electoral and popular vote resulting in the House of Representatives selecting the President.
The above cases have resulted from the system requiring a majority of electoral votes and not popular votes to win the election. This characteristic of the system has been persistently and widely criticized and numerous reform plans proposed (Williams). In the present day political climate, the proposed constitutional amendments can be categorized into those that are for the elimination of the Electoral College and substituting it with direct popular election of the President and Vice President and those that advocate for its retention in a certain form while making corrections to its perceived flaws.
The direct popular election alternative would eliminate the Electoral College and substitute it with a single countrywide count of popular votes. The President and Vice President would be the candidates winning the plurality of votes. Grofman and Feld state that the individuals interested in eliminating the Electoral College severally start by mentioning that the original justification for its existence, "the designation of sets of knowledgeable individuals who will meet in isolation in their respective states to deliberate and to make informed choices", as irrelevant in the modern world (1). Furthermore, the opponents point out the possibility of a popular vote loser being the winner of the Electoral College majority.
Reforms have been necessitated by the displeasure of individuals with certain aspects of the Electoral College system. They include the possible formulation of an inherent advantage in the Electoral College by a party if its strength comes disproportionately from the smaller states. Electors rarely vote for presidential candidates other than the winner of their state's presidential election (Fuentes-Rohwer and Charles). In addition, the Electoral College fails to meet the one person, one vote standard since it overweights the seat shares of smaller states.
Furthermore, candidates focus on the relative small number of potentially competitive states leaving a majority of the country hardly aware of an ongoing presidential election, therefore, decreasing the overall turnout incentives. This is as a result of the strategic environment the Electoral College shapes that distort the democratic process. In addition, since the outcome in the most competitive states is expected to be more competitive than the outcome of the national popular vote, and because a close election outcome in one large state may be decisive in the Electoral College, motivators for exercising electoral fraud in such states are substantial (Grofman and Feld).
There are several proposals of reform measures that would retain the Electoral College in some form. Most of them would terminate the elector's office, award electoral votes to candidates directly and retain the requisite that to win the presidency, it is necessary to have a majority of electoral votes. Similar to the direct election, it would be necessary for presidential and vice presidential candidates to have joint tickets.
The automatic plan is one of the proposed reform plans. It would award all electoral votes in each state to the winning candidates who attained the most votes statewide directly. A plurality would be adequate in individual states to win the state's electoral votes. The plan would constitutionally mandate the winner-take-all system used to award electoral votes currently. Opponents of this plan argue that the elections are still indirect and that a minority president could still be elected (Fuentes-Rohwer and Charles). Furthermore, it does not allow for the electoral vote recognition of the opinions and views of voters that chose losing candidates. The proponents argue that it maintains the balance between small and large states and between the current Electoral College system and the federal and state power. It would eliminate potential faithless electors and preserve the current two-party system, under the state by state winner-take-all method of electoral votes allocation.
The district plan would preserve the current electoral votes allocation by state and eliminate the presidential elector office. An electoral vote would be awarded to winning candidates in each congressional district of each state. Statewide vote winners would be awarded the two additional electoral votes (Neale). This system would constitutionally mandate the electoral votes award system in Nebraska and Maine. Opponents of the system note that a minority president can be elected, it retains the indirect election of the president, and it might weaken the two-party system. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that it would reflect the presidential and vice presidential popular vote results more accurately as compared to the automatic plan. This method takes into account political differences within the states. In addition, it provides an incentive for party vitality and increased voter involvement in party dominated states. The less dominant party could win votes in the districts where it has more support.
The proportional plan would award electoral votes in each state proportionately to the percentage of the popular vote each ticket gains. Strict proportional plans would award electoral votes in small proportions for instance as thousandths of a vote (Grofman and Feld). Rounded proportional plans would award competing candidates whole numbers of electoral votes using various rounding methods. Opponents of this plan state that it retains indirect presidential election and might result in more case of Electoral College deadlocks as a result of the elimination of automatic and district plans magnifier effect. On the other hand, proponents suggest that it’s the closest reform to preserve the role of the state in presidential elections and electing the President and Vice President by popular vote.
In conclusion, the Electoral College and the various reform proposals are both immensely criticized and supported by various individuals. The interest of individuals in changing or eliminating the Electoral College has been substantially dependent on how accurately it seems to ratify the choice of the voters. The opponents of the system and its reform proposals mainly focus on elections being indirect, election of minority Presidents, dismissal of views and opinions of voters who vote for losing candidates, weakening of the two-party system and increase in the number of electoral college deadlocks. Generally, policymakers have concluded that changing the existing Electoral College system is not necessary; there has not been a compelling call for change. So long as the electoral college system functions substantially and avoids provoking a national crisis similar to the 1800 turmoil accompanying presidential elections and triggering the 12th amendment, then it may stay unchanged.
Works Cited
Fuentes-Rohwer, Luis and Guy-Uriel Charles. "The Electoral College, the Right to Vote, and our Federalism: A Comment in a Lasting Institution." Florida State University Law Review (n.d.): 879-924.
Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld. "Thinking About the Political Impacts of the Electoral College." Public Choice (2005): 1-18.
Neale, Thomas H. "Electoral College Reform: 111th Congress Proposals and Other Current Developments." 2009.
Williams, Norman R. "Reforming the Electoral College: Federalism, Majoritarianism, and the Perils of Sub constitutional Change." The Georgetown Law Journal (n.d.): 173-236.
