To what extent is the electoral college the best method for electing the president? Flashcards
Points against EC
- Winner takes all system
- Campaigns focus on swing states
- Third party candidates don’t have a chance
Points for EC
- Very stable and produces a President with a Majority
- Awards electors based on population size, which is fair.
- There hasn’t been any agreed alternatives
Why is the winner-takes-all system not the best?
The winner-takes-all, simple plurality system, which is used in 48 of the states, distorts the popular vote.
In 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 the winner of the Electoral College lost the popular vote.
In 2016, Trump gained 62 million votes and 304 electors, whereas Clinton gained more votes (65 million) but fewer electors (227).
The system also creates a lot of wasted votes.
In the 2012 Presidential Election, 37.12% of California’s electorate (4.8 million people) voted for Mitt Romney, but Obama won the state, therefore these 4.8 million votes for Romney were wasted because they didn’t help him win a single elector.
Significance of the winner-takes-all system
The popular vote is not followed, which is undemocratic.
This goes against the idea of a government for the people, by the people.
It could be argued that the winner may lack a popular mandate, therefore lack legitimacy.
Why is the EC bad as they focus on swing states?
Between May to Election Day 2012, Obama and Romney made a total of 35 visits to Ohio, 31 visits to Florida and 29 to Virginia.
In the 2012 Presidential Election, 38 states were not visited a single time by the candidates because they were not swing states.
Between April 11th and Election Day 2012, Obama spent $314.8 million on TV ads, of which 99.6% was spent in just 10 states.
Significance of only focusing on swing states
Undemocratic and unfair on voters in non-swing states.
May cause apathy in non-swing states.
Could lead to lower turnout in non-swing states
Why is the EC bad as third party candidates don’t stand a chance?
In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot stood as an independent candidate and gained 18.9% of the popular vote, but didn’t gain the plurality of the vote in any states, therefore he received no electors at the Electoral College.
There were 5 third party candidates in the 2012 presidential election, but none received any Electoral College vote
Significance of having 2 party domination caused by the EC
Voters who don’t agree with the two main parties are less represented.
Voters have less choice, which goes against the principles of a pluralist democracy.
Easier for wealthy third party candidates, which alienates normal voters
How can it be argued that the EC is stable and produces a Majority president?
In the 2012 presidential election, Obama received 332 electors, whereas Mitt Romney only received 206 electors, therefore Obama had a clear mandate and legitimacy.
In the 2016 presidential election, Trump received 304 electors, whereas Clinton only received 227 electors, therefore Trump had a clear mandate and legitimacy.
Why is the EC producing a majority significant?
Having a majority means the president has a mandate, legitimacy and authority.
Stability means there are less likely to be political disturbances, which in the most serious but unlikely of cases could cause a revolution.
Rebuttal to the claim that the EC is stable?
However, there have been times in which the Electoral College hasn’t been stable.
In 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 when the winner of the Electoral College lost the popular vote.
In 1824, no candidate had an absolute majority so the House of
Representatives could decide, but the House didn’t choose the candidate who had the largest percentage of the popular vote or largest number of electors.
How can the EC be argued as fair as they award electors based on population size?
The number of electors a state has is the number of Senators and Congressmen who represent the state.
Alaska has 3 electors due to its small population of around 737,000.
California has 55 electors due to its large population of around 38.8 million.
The 23rd Amendment gave 3 electors to the District of Columbia so they would be represented in the Electoral College.
Re-districting also leads to fairness because states which grow in population are rewarded by more electors or with less as their population falls.
Significance of the distribution of EC Electors
Means that small states don’t have an overly disproportionate influence, which was one of the key arguments at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.
It is simple to calculate the number of electors a state has, therefore this helps to reduce alienation of less educated voters from the political process.
What is a rebuttal to the argument that the EC is best as it awards electors based on pop. size?
However, there is under and over-representation of certain states.
If the number of electors was truly based on population size, Alaska should have 1.2 electors, but it actually has 3, therefore is over-represented.
California should have 65 electors if this were truly based on population size, but it only has 55.
The EC is the best as there aren’t any agreed alternatives
Only two states (Maine and Nebraska) use the congressional district method, which is where electors are given based on the winners of each congressional district, with the state-wide winner receiving two additional votes.
The congressional district method still creates lots of wasted votes and can actually produce an even less proportional result to the simple plurality method.
A proportional system or a popular vote system could be used. This would make it much less likely that a candidate would win an absolute majority.
