ETVT the electoral college is fit for purpose (30) Flashcards
It protects the voice of small states
You could argue that the electoral college means small states have more of a voice, the founding fathers when drafting the constitution wanted to make sure that smaller states were not faced with ‘tyranny of the majority’ by larger and more dominant states such as California.
The electoral college therefore means that all states were given fair representation, the amount of Electoral college votes is based on the number of congresspersons in the state, plus 2 senators.
This means they use a combination of proportional and equal representation, making it fair and democratic.
Californias population is 63 times the size of Wyoming, but Wyoming still have 3 electoral college votes to California’s 55.
It overrepresents small states
In the electoral college attempt to protect the voting rights and the voice of the smaller states they actually undermine the democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote’ and make them extremely overrepresented.
For example, the three smallest states are Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 560,000 people. However, Wyoming had 570,000 citizens and as a result this means they have one electoral college vote every 190,000 people.
In California they have 55 electoral college votes, and therefore 1 electoral college vote every 700,000 people.
This means that for people who live in smaller states such as Wyoming, their vote carries significantly more importance on the outcome of the presidential election then someone who lives in California, this means that not every citizen has equal voting power and is therefore fundamentally undemocratic.
The electoral college is skewed in favour of the smaller states, this means that in the 2020 election, in California Biden needed over 308,000 votes to win the electoral college, however in Wyoming he needed just under 120,000 votes to win a electoral college vote.
It is clear that the electoral college fails to uphold the democratic principle of one person, one vote.
Furthermore, there are many wasted votes in this system any surplus vote for a winning candidate that has no effect on the outcome is wasted and all votes for a losing candidate in a state is wasted, because of the winner takes all system.
In Pennsylvania for example around 3,100,000 votes were wasted and had no impact on the presidential result
Ensures broad support socially and geographically
You could argue that the electoral college ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the president of the United States, if the election was to depend solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily populated areas or specific regions.
To win elections therefore presidential campaigns need electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore they build campaign platforms with a national focus.
For example, without the electoral college farmers in rural areas in states such as Iowa would be ignored in favour of urban areas with high population densities, this leaves rural areas and small towns marginalised.
Tina Mulally is a south Dakotan representative that compared a popular vote ‘like two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner’, the current electoral college system creates a needed balance between rural and urban interests and ensures that the winning candidate has support from multiple regions in the country.
Currently 83% of the US population lives in urban areas meaning that it is likely rural areas will be marginalised to some extent.
Gives too much power to swing states
However, the electoral college also gives far too much power to swing states and allows the presidential election to be decided by a number of states. The two main political parties can count on winning the electoral votes in certain states.
In California the democrats have won over 60% of the vote since 2008 and the state has voted democrat in the last 8 presidential elections, because all votes for republicans in the state are therefore ‘wasted’, the presidential nominee can focus their campaign in other places.
In Pennsylvania Trump won by 0.7% of the vote and therefore all votes for Clinton were ‘wasted’, this places significantly more importance on these ‘battleground’ states then others.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 states according to PBS NewsHour, of those visits over 2/3 took place in 4 states, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina.
Produces a clear winner
There is some argument that in most cases the electoral college is able to produce a clear outcome and winner, the ending is not usually contentious and there is little need for a national recount.
For example in the 2020 presidential election the popular vote was split by just 5%, however Biden won 306 electoral college votes and trump only won 232, this is a clear and strong mandate, there is no uncertainty about the legitimacy of the decision.
In 2004 George W Bush only received 2% more of the popular vote then John Kerry did, however won 35 more electoral college votes.
HOWEVER at the expense of the popular vote
However, it is possible for the electoral college to not result in a clear outcome, and this can create some degree of uncertainty. There could be a circumstance where no candidate reaches the 270 majority of electoral college votes, this happened in 1800 and 1824.
This means that the president would be elected by the house of representatives, each state would have one vote and the winner require 26/50 votes, this takes electoral power away from the people and is undemocratic.
Furthermore, the winner-take-all system distorts the results and can lead to the winner of the popular vote failing to be elected as president.
In 1996 Bill Clinton won 49% of the popular vote and 70% of the electoral college votes.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 48% to 46% and won nearly 3 million more votes, however trump managed to get a comfortable win the electoral college.
Furthermore, in the 2000 presidential election democrat Al Gore received around 400,000 more votes and 0.5% more than George W Bush, however in this case he lost the electoral college by 5 votes.
Advantages of the invisible primary process
Invisible primaries help candidates gain visibility and build a platform for both support and campaign finance.
It allows for a range of candidates, the first democrat debate in June 2019 had 20 democrat candidates from all factions of the party.
They provide good scrutiny from print, televisual and electronic media. In the 2011 debate, governor Rick Perry of texas had a much-publicised memory loss when he could not recall the three executive departments he would close if he was president, as a result he polled less than 1% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary.
Candidates therefore can be tested for potential flaws and hidden scandals before they emerge at a gender election and make sure they will be a effective candidate.
The primary/caucuses maintain federalism, along with the electoral college. States can decide themselves whether they want to hold primaries or caucuses, Iowa and California for example.
The electoral college is very much state-based, with each state having a certain amount of leeway in how its electors are selected, Maine and Nebraska for example use the congressional district method and not a winner take all system.
Disadvanatges of the primary process
Debates are not always serious, many candidates that the process is as much about soundbites as serious issues.
In the 2019 invisible primary debates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders quarrelled over whether sanders once said that a women could not win the presidency, after the debate she refused to shake his hand and accused him of calling her a liar on national TV.
Candidate survival seems to be heavily dependent on funding and finance, this can be in many occasions more important then the quality of candidate. In 2016 Hillary Clinton spend $768 million on her failed presidential run in.
Voter apathy, both primaries and caucuses tend to have very low turnout, in 2020 for example the Iowa caucus saw a turnout of 9.1%, whilst the highest primary turnout in Montana was only 45%.
