The Electoral College is an integral part of the current election process of the United States. Created during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the establishment of Electors and electors was developed through debate of the Virginia Plan, which proposed that Congress should elect the president. However, concerns of the president being controlled by Congress and fears over a small group of individuals being able to dictate who would hold office presented the need to change the plan. For this reason, the Electoral College, which attempts to proportionately divide state votes among delegates. While it has been contested that the Electoral College has major flaws, it is evident that there are major sources of stability that are derived from its existence. The Electoral College should not be replaced by direct election of the President for three important reasons. First of all, the establishment of a direct election can result in the election of candidates that the minority of voters had desired. While this has been a major source of scrutiny directed at the Electoral College, it seems that direct elections are also prone to these issues. Furthermore, in the Electoral College, there is less likelihood of damage being caused to the will of the electors from 3rd party candidates. In this sense, it is evident that in direct elections there are various ways that the elections can be levied for personal gain. Finally ,it should be considered that, in the direct election creates power imbalances between larger and smaller states. This is due to the basis of popular voting. These issues are mitigated by the existence of the Electoral College. For this reason, it should not be replaced by direct election.
There are various arguments made by those who prefer the idea of direct elections over the current process of the Electoral College. One major challenge is in regards to the ability for the process to provide a democratic form of representation. Proponents of replacing the Electoral College with the direct election argue that it “consistently distorts and often directly misrepresents the votes citizens have cast” (Edwards 2005, p. 10). A major argument against the electoral college is that it was originally established in order to provide a semblance of coherence to the process. Those who were making the decisions were better informed to do so. However, it is argued by those who wish to establish direct elections that this is unnecessary in the modern world. People are generally more educated than people were in the past and should be given more responsibility in regards to the political decisions that they are given. This presents a major source of consideration in regards to the arguments from each side.
Another major challenge that has been levied against the Electoral College is the power that it provides to smaller states. In this sense it is argued that the process “somehow preserves federalism or small states' legitimate interests” (Edwards 2005, p. 11). One major concern of the democratic process would be to develop methods for maintaining equal representation across the various states despite their sizes. For this reason establishing the basis for these claims is of value. Imbalances due to the weight given to states, the potential for the winner to have lost the popular vote, and disproportionate advantages are all sited as major failures of the Electoral College in adhering to democratic principles. Proponents of the establishment of direct elections cite these implications as a major source of criticism for the current system. This demonstrates another major concern of the Electoral College.
Finally, the issue of variability is important to consider. In this respect, it is important to develop an understanding of the way that elections and how they are presented develop a specific attention on particular issues of various importance to those that the candidates are attempting to appeal to. It is evident that “a direct vote of the people rather than Congress or immediate electors” (Edwards 2005, p. 11). This presents the need for further analysis of these considerations. Another point is that it focuses national attention on those states that have the variability for political competition which can cause an imbalance in the issues that are considered by the candidates (Grofman & Feld 2009). These issues, which are developed in regards to the responses that the candidates have to the voters needs, would be much more difficult to dictate in the case of a direct election. However, these arguments should be considered on the following points.
One major argument that can be made for the Electoral College and its significance is the basis upon which it was established. In understanding this, it becomes evident that the Electoral College and its processes was not created by accident. In regards to the idea that the Electoral College is no longer necessary, it has been argued that “while no longer serving the purposes intended by the Founding Fathers, has evolved to play new and useful roles” (Grofman & Feld 2009, p. 2). In this sense, it is evident that there was a particular purpose for the establishment of the Electoral College that goes beyond simply ensuring that votes are divided in a responsible manner among the states. This involves ensuring the stability and the representation of each state. The implications of the Electoral College go well beyond simply ensuring that ill-informed people vote correctly. For this reason, the argument that it should be replaced due to modern forms of education is not necessarily well-informed.
Furthermore, it is evident that there is not much risk associated with an unpopular president being elected through the delegation of votes by the Electoral College. For this reason, in regards to the argument that the Electoral College can elect an unpopular president, it seems that this occurrence “has been relatively rare, and will continue to be rare” (Grofman & Feld 2009, p. 2). Furthermore, in such situations, the public outcry against the process seems to have been minimal. This is primarily due to the fact that such an election is not necessarily off by a margin that could be considered unjustifiable. Consideration should be given for the delegation of votes and the process by which the election is carried out. This presents an important point in regards to the capacity of both forms of election to provide the best possible results that are most representative of the nation's desires. The winner-take-all process, while it may result in a president who did not win the popular vote being elected, cannot necessarily be said to be undemocratic.
It should be pointed out that there have been various attempts to reform the current system under these notions. “Constitutional amendments for the direct election of the president have been introduced in Congress throughout American history” (Arrington 1984, p. 238). A major consideration in regards to the establishment of direct elections is therefore whether or not they can be considered to actually provide the level of democratic representation that is argued for by opponents of the Electoral College. However, with a direct election it seems that there can be misrepresentation, especially in cases in which there are three popular candidates under consideration. The Electoral College was designed in order to mitigate this type of issue. “It can be expected that the direct election scheme, with its 40-percent runoff provision, will generate elections of this kind” (Arrington 1984, p. 245). For this reason, the direct election should not be implemented. The major challenges that will be associated with such a process would far outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, the costs and liabilities that should be considered have not been established by the proponents of this system.
Another major concern that has been levied against the Electoral College is the ability for third party candidates to take advantage of the structure of direct elections in order to manipulate the votes for themselves. This would result in a type of political bargaining that would erode the nature of the national elections. However, it is pointed out that this would be the result of regionalism in voters, which there is no evidence of. “Most social scientists talk about the growing nationalism of America and not about increasing regionalism” (Arrington 1984, p. 247). The argument that these manipulations can take place is therefore predicated on a misinformed understanding of how these types of elections can have an effect on the priorities of the various individuals and interested parties who are taking part. This demonstrates a major point in regards to the argument, which seems to be based on notions of political entitlement that are not necessarily the case. In this sense, it is evident that there is a major lack of consideration that has been given to the current state of affairs and the developments that would occur if the direct election were implemented.
Finally, the argument that smaller states are given more power by proponents of direct elections demonstrates the need for consideration. In this case, it seems that the issue of power imbalances between states is actually an important priority of the Electoral College. A major consideration should therefore be the larger context of power in the political process. It is evident that “the very same groups that are benefited by the Electoral College are disadvantaged in Congress” (Arrington 1984, p. 248). This demonstrates an often overlooked point in regards to the consideration that is given to the balance that is created by this system. The imbalance of the Electoral College can therefore be seen to be a remedy to the natural imbalance that occurs from the existence of Congressional authority. For this reason, it is an essential establishment and its removal would likely result in various unforeseen consequences. For this reason, proponents of the direct election must work to provide evidence that this system would be able to handle these drastic changes.
It is evident that, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, adoption of the electoral College was “met with widespread approval by the delegates” (Neale 1). This is due to the fact that its creation was able to meet several important criteria, such as the balance of state and federal interests, giving states the authority to participate in popular elections, and establishing the presidential authority outside the powers of Congress (Neale 2012). These goals were all taken into consideration at the creation of the Electoral College. The concern that there is no inherent legitimacy to the organization is therefore unfounded. This demonstrates the complexity that is generally ignored when making arguments levied at the institution and its legitimacy. The establishment of the Electoral College was done so with a great deal of scrutiny and care.
A major challenge to proponents of the direct vote is the establishment of legitimacy in regards to the systems that would be in place. In this sense, it is important to consider the development of a new system of national elections and the issues that would result. Implementing the direct vote would lead to “a host of defects that would make electoral misfires more likely and trigger a series of political and constitutional crises” (Williams 173). Furthermore, this would be a major source of instability moving forward. As these changes would require major changes to the current system and would need to have the agreements among various states in a subconstitutioanl form, the system “risks creating a presidential election system that is neither workable nor fair” (Williams 173). While it is argued that the direct election would promote fairness and representation, it would likely be the case that these factors would be reduced in this scenario. It is therefore essential to develop a coherent framework for implementing such a strategy.
The Electoral College is therefore an important source of stability within the election process. While the current system does not present the ideological idea of pure democracy, it is evident that “the benefits of the Electoral College system over time have far outweighed its shortcomings” (Boylan 57). Furthermore, the system was established in connection with the desire to develop a strong and coherent Federal framework. The current Federal system, of which the Electoral College is an essential part, is considered by many experts to be “a continued source of the Constitution’s strength durability” (Boylan 57). Removal of it would, therefore, be a major challenge to the stability and strength of the political process.
While there are major challenges to the establishment of the Electoral College it is evident that the system is necessary. The conception of this system has generally been that it is unnecessary and prevents the true democratic process from taking place. However, there is a consistent need for the stability provided by the Electoral College. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the Electoral College actually works to provide a necessary level of representation that would otherwise not be achieved. For this reason, the Electoral College should not be replaced by a direct election.
Annotated Bibliography:
Arrington, T.S. & Brenner, S. (1984). Should the Electoral College Be Replaced by the Direct Election of the President? American Political Science Association: PS, Vol. 17, No. 2, 237.
Provides an overview of the process by which the President is elected. Through the presentation of a debate regarding the way that this should be done, the source develops and understanding of the complexity associated with national elections. The source covers primary elections, conventions, and their relation to the Electoral College and the United States' election process. It develops a step by step analysis of the various arguments from either side of the debate. By doing so, it develops insight into the election process and the issues that have been brought up surrounding it. This helps to develop a better understanding of how the election process has been considered from each side.
Boylan, T.S. (2008). A Constitutional Defense of the Electoral College and the Election of the American President. The Open Political Science Journal, 1, 50-58.
Boylan's paper provides various arguments in defense of the currently established Electoral College system. It begins by establishing the base concerns that were in place after the events of the 2000 elections. The challenges that this event brought forth resulted in various challenges to the representation that the system is able to provide. Boylan argues that the Electoral College actually preserves the democratic process in significant ways. The Electoral College in fact helps the election process endure various sources of instability that would usually threaten the democratic process. This presents evidence that suggests that the institution is essential for the ongoing elections of the Untied States.
Edwards, G.C. (2005). Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. Yale University Press. 198.
Edwards makes the argument that the electoral process should be replaced or, at the very least, that there should be a more broadly based discussion that takes the possibility of replacement more seriously. He uses the work of various political thinkers to demonstrate the legacy of arguments that has been made regarding the replacement of the system. This source works as a starting point for understanding the basic arguments that have been made both for and against the establishment of a direct election. H goes on to demonstrate a major challenge in implementing such a method for elections, which is that many politicians, once elected, fail to act on their promise to reform the process.
Grofman, B. & Feld, S. (2005). Thinking About the Political Impacts of the Electoral College. Public Choice. 123: 1-18.
This source provides various counterarguments to the proponents of direct elections. The authors work by first setting out the major arguments that have been made in consideration of replacing the Electoral College and then continue to develop arguments against each point. By doing so, they lay out a framework for the logic that is used by both sides of the argument. Furthermore, the source provides evidence that helps to suggest the legitimacy of the Electoral College and arguments in order to support this position. The article goes on to provide in depth analysis of the considerations that are given in order to develop a more thorough understanding of the issues.
Neale, T.H. (2012). CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections. Congressional Research Service. 25.
Gives an overview of the basic way in which the contemporary election process takes place. Breaks down the role of the Electoral College and the logic behind its various policies and procedures. Gives further insight into the concerns that were considered when the Electoral college was implemented as well as important ways of developing methods for challenging the process. Provides a historical analysis of challenges that were presented in opposition to its establishment. This source helps to provide evidence of the importance of the electoral process and the justification for the continuation of its existence. Furthermore, helps to provide a better picture of the challenges that face the election process.
Williams, N.R. (2011). Reforming the Electoral College: Federalism, Majoritarianism, and the Perils of Subconstitutional Chang. The Georgetown Law Journal. 100(173). 173-236.
Discussion of the National Popular Vote Compact, a political movement directed at replacing the Electoral College with the direct vote. This movement was primarily a response to the 200 election, in which the winning candidate received less than the majority of popular votes. The author makes an attempt to demonstrate the dangers of such a major change to the election system. These changes, the paper argues, would actually create more issues than they would fix and would inevitably be the source of various national crises. This source therefore presents evidence to support the argument that the Electoral College should not be replaced.
References
Arrington, T.S. & Brenner, S. (1984). Should the Electoral College Be Replaced by the Direct Election of the President? American Political Science Association: PS, Vol. 17, No. 2, 237.
Boylan, T.S. (2008). A Constitutional Defense of the Electoral College and the Election of the American President. The Open Political Science Journal, 1, 50-58.
Edwards, G.C. (2005). Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. Yale University Press. 198.
Grofman, B. & Feld, S. (2005). Thinking About the Political Impacts of the Electoral College. Public Choice. 123: 1-18.
Neale, T.H. (2012). CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections. Congressional Research Service. 25.
Williams, N.R. (2011). Reforming the Electoral College: Federalism, Majoritarianism, and the Perils of Subconstitutional Chang. The Georgetown Law Journal. 100(173). 173-236.
