Electoral College

A major conflict concerning the electoral college lingers in America. The

Constitutional Convention created the college in 1789 in hopes that it would be an

adequate system (MacBride 29). The electoral college consists of senators and

representatives who cast their votes for the state they represent. Those who feel that the

college should remain as it is believe that the American people are too uninformed about

election issues to vote. The argument for the modification of the college maintains that the

people are not actually electing the president, but the larger states are. Ultimately, the

majority of the United States citizens support the elimination of an electoral college that

serves no purpose in the government.

The argument in favor of the continuation of the electoral college holds that it

represents an effective institution. First, the format of the college demonstrates its validity.

The amount of electoral votes awarded to each state, extremely critical in elections,

remains decided by the number of senators and representatives in Congress (Polsby 45).

Many politicians find the existing system extremely efficient because they feel the electors

well represent their constituents (Best 52). In addition, the electoral college’s ability to

efficiently serve its purpose provides a reason for its long existence. “An electoral system

should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that

create uncertainty and public turmoil” (Best 210). Moreover, never in the history of the

electoral college has a controversy developed in which the college rejected “an individual

who had an undisputed majority of the popular vote” (Best 52). Most importantly, those

who agree with preserving the electoral college believe that election by popular vote, the

alternative to the college, would create numerous deficiencies in the system. Election by

direct popular vote would be “hazardous to the nation’s health,” said a concerned citizen

(Weisberger 24). Liable to deceptions of the truth and too uniformed of the candidates, the

people, voting directly, pose a threat to the system of electing presidents (Weisberger 24).

Many people feel that the “popular election of presidents would work a diminution of the

political power of racial and other minority groups in the nation’s urban centers” (Bickel

13).

On the other hand, the position in favor of ridding the nation of the electoral

college argues that the college serves no purpose. First of all, the present format of the

electoral college manifests the colleges’ insufficient qualities. The current format of the

college, giving the edge to the larger states, exhibits the inadequacies of it (Polsby 32).

“The electoral college system, it is claimed, does not guarantee that the candidate with the

most popular votes will win, produces great inequalities in voting power among the

national electorate, contains a contingency election provision that is not only

unrepresentative but that could also result in an impasse or in political duels, permits the

will of the majority voters in a state or even in the nation to be thwarted through the

constitutional independence of the electors, and permits the electoral decision to turn on

fraud or chance in key states” (Best 22). A study conducted by John F. Banzhaf, III

revealed that “states like New York and California have over two and one half times as

much