The United States Electoral College is a historical archaism that was established many years back. The American forefathers believed that the citizens could not prudently vote for their senators or the president. During the Electoral College invention, women and African-Americans were not allowed to participate in the election. There has been a serious debate on whether to continue with the current system or ament the constitution and introduce another system of late. Those who support this system seem to have no legitimate reason; however, those who support abolishing have several compelling reasons. The founders designed the system to give all electoral votes to the candidate with majority votes in each state irrespective of its margin. Based on this current system, the Electoral College repudiates the fundamental democratic principles by making one citizen’s vote superior to others.
For a long time, Americans have debated whether the electoral college system represented people’s will or should the constitution be changed to introduce another system such as a popular system. However, the majority agree that the current system is the best, and there is no need to amend the constitution. The current electoral college system has been in use for more than three centuries. Those who support the claim for the abolishment of the electoral system base their argument on several reasons (Magazine Stanford p.2). Some claim that presidential electors are not special people than other citizens to decide who should head the federal government. However, they are mere party loyalists who seem not to deliberate about anything more than political alignments. The supporters of this motion also argue that the so-called small states’ real interests are never determined by the relative size of their states’ population. Therefore, giving these states two electors to give them additional protection is a senseless idea that should never apply in a democratic nation such as the United States. Moreover, the state’s size does not influence the actual political inclinations even though the Electoral College system tends to imagine so. The supporters of current system asserts that the Electoral College system promotes both federal and state sovereignty. However, those on contrary opinion claim that state sovereignty rarely gives states the power to command those right.
The abolishment supporters also argue that the Electoral College system does not give votes the same weight. The framers of the constitution thought that the introduction of The Electoral College would provide the voters with the same treatment; however, it seems the contrary. The law even seems to recognize that the Electoral College system does not weigh votes equally. It should note that democracy is grounded on people’s will; however, the electoral College system does not recognize these. More than 50 different states currently conduct the country’s presidential election with its own rules and regulation regarding mail-in balloting and registration. The state decides its ballots and when recounts are required. Scholars in political science scholars claim that electoral college math persuades candidates to concentrate on voters in small states who might otherwise be ignored. Other scholars who support the Electoral College’s abolishment argue that the system gives disproportionate and undue power from specific battlegrounds states, thus violating one man’s principle of one vote (Feerick, p. 2). However, those who support the system claim that it prevents the majority’s tyranny and encourages diversity of interests to be represented in the presidential election.
Furthermore, the supporters of abolishment claim that the current system distorts and complicates the Presidential election. In case a candidate appears to have an unbeatable lead in a particular state, then none of the competitive candidates has much incentive on such a state. Proponents of the Electoral College claim that the “winner takes all” arrangement makes a state gain more recognition. On the contrary, in those states with one race, the candidates may have a strong campaign wherever they think they can gunner most votes. Changing the system to a popular one will enable presidential candidates to concentrate on other important issues instead of statewide –polls. Experts argue that the Electoral College system inhibits effective electoral reforms in the country; hence there is a need to change it (Nonprofitvote.Org, p. 2). Several alternative election systems such as the Condorcet voting system, Approval voting, and popular voting system are better; however, they cannot be implemented so long as the Electoral College system is in operation. It is possible to implement these alternative systems at the state level; however, they will be ineffective when combined with the Electoral College system. The current system seems to ensure a two-party system thrives; hence candidates with minor parties find it difficult to compete at the presidential level. Moreover, the Electoral College system may lead to political instability due to vote splitting.
This current system’s proponents argue that it compels the Presidential candidates to consider sparsely populated states they would otherwise ignore. The move is right since The Electoral College system awkwardly gives more weight to votes in such states. The analysis shows that some states, such as California and Wyoming, get more than twice the electoral ballot per person. Moreover, minorities in most non-swing states such as Texas may feel neglected by Electoral College system since their force is not considered (Leib, Ethan and Eli, p. 106). Experts claim that if the current system is needed to give small states equal representation, the same treatment should apply, not at the national and state levels. Governors and senators seem to ignore some rural areas since their fate depends on popular votes. If the Electoral college system is true to its words, then states such as California should have their electoral college based on counties. Others assert that the current system isolates vote recounts to one or several states with election malpractice instead of the entire nation hence simplifying recount. However, those who oppose the system claim that it is specious that all votes would be recounted if all states conduct mal-practice.
In conclusion, the Electoral College has for a long time distorted and completed Presidential elections in the United States by violating fundamental democratic principles. There are legitimate reasons to replace the current system with a more favorable one to ensure the democratic rights are observed. Those who favor the current system have baseless reasons; hence the time has come to amend the constitution to introduce a popular voting system in the Electoral College system. We need constitutional amendments to give the current two-party duopoly effective competition it needs at the Presidential level. Unfortunately, the changes will never occur since only 38 states will support the motion while the remaining ones preserve their disproportionate share of power. Therefore, we can only hope to put both democracy and national interest ahead of our self-interest.