In its current form, the electoral college is responsible for creating situations where the presidency is determined not by popular mandate nationwide, but by a winner-take-all approach. This is a feature of most state electoral laws and its significance is highlighted mostly in the manner presidential campaigns are conducted and in the competitive approaches of the two main political parties. In the last presidential election, the presidency was awarded based on electoral college votes accrued despite a conspicuous popular vote difference between the two main contenders. This has been the basis for the latest calls to replace the electoral college with a direct popular election of the president. Among other things, it is essential to consider the effects of such an election approach on democracy, competition among the main political parties and the manner of the presidential campaign.
While the Constitution safeguards the role of the electoral college in awarding the presidency, the latter has practical implications that are more complex and far-reaching. Under the winner-takes-all approach adopted by most states, presidential candidates of the main political parties are almost certain of the number of states where they can secure most of the electoral college votes and vice versa (Patterson, 2016). Not only does this mean that electoral college votes inform how presidential campaigns are conducted, but it also limits such campaigns to those states that have recorded uncertainty in terms of voting along party lines. Such states, due to the uncertainty observed in their voting records become the focus of presidential campaigns in a national election. Therefore, the outcome of any presidential election is determined by outcomes in the so-called battleground states . Under a direct popular approach, presidential campaigns would have to be conducted across the entire nation to determine electoral popularity (Rakove, 2000). Therefore, all the dimensions of presidential campaigns would assume a national outlook and presence. The focus would shift from battleground states to the entire nation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Currently, Electoral College members are selected by political parties, in turn, they are required to vote along party lines. This means that the current form does not preserve democratic values for the members are required to vote along party lines regardless of their perception of their party’s presidential candidate (Illing, 2016). This approach guarantees the main political parties of securing votes in states where they have unassailable popularity. Furthermore, this means that such parties will be more motivated to preserve such popularity as opposed to creating policies that have national appeal. A direct popular electoral approach would compel the main political parties to allocate resources towards campaigns of popularizing their policies even into those areas where they are not perceived as being popular (Johnson, 2016).
Under this approach, there is less likelihood of partisanship, a trend that has afflicted at least the last 3 presidential administrations. Because the nation is largely divided into states that are either pro-Democratic or Republican parties, partisanship has been used as a tool seemingly to safeguard political popularity in their respective stronghold states (Johnson, 2016). Unfortunately, displays of partisanship have had the effect of dividing the nation along political party lines and have eroded the electoral legitimacy of the presidency (Seipel, 2017). Conversely, a direct popular approach would mitigate against the negative effects of partisanship for the political parties would base their popularity on the entire nation as opposed to individual states that find natural resonance with their political message.
The Electoral College has at least two outcomes that are undemocratic. As mentioned above, the main political parties are certain of securing electoral votes in certain states, in which the popular vote has no significance (Seipel, 2017). Therefore, presidential election campaigns are primarily focused only on those states where the electoral votes can go to either party based on political competition. This means that a limited number of states bear unparalleled significance in awarding the presidency because of their electoral votes. Practically, this limits the political voice of citizens from many of the states in what is termed as a national election. Furthermore, this increases the likelihood that voters from the non-competitive states will continue to have their electoral voice silenced by electoral votes (Johnson, 2016). Not only would a direct electoral approach empower such voters, but it would also create renewed interest in voter registration, voter turnout, and lead to presidential campaigns based on national and not state issues. Still, this approach would expand the competition between political parties beyond the competitive states (Johnson, 2016).
The Electoral College has about 538 members while the nation has approximately 300 million citizens (Patterson, 2016). Yet, it is the former that is the most significant in the awarding of the presidency. A practical outcome of the winner-take-all approach of the electoral votes is that the gravity attached to a single vote varies from one state to the next based on the allocation of electoral votes. In the foregoing instances, the electoral college prevents voters from fully actualizing their electoral rights as would be expected under a constitutional democracy (Rakove, 2000). Conversely, a direct popular approach would protect the significance of each vote and the right of each voter to participate in a presidential election. Furthermore, members of the Electoral College are selected along party lines, meaning that they are more likely to execute the mandate of their political parties (Illing, 2016). Put succinctly, not only are the electoral votes unevenly distributed, but they are more likely to be influenced by party policies and further disenfranchise the voters.
In most states, the electoral votes are awarded based on a winner-take-all approach and the practical outcomes are distinct. The focus of presidential campaigns is limited to those states considered to be politically competitive as the electoral votes gained in such states most likely determine the award of the presidency in closely contested elections. Political parties have embraced policies that seek to conserve their popularity in non-competitive states as represented by the number of Congress and Senators leading to partisanship in both levels of the legislature. Finally, this approach presents a numerical disadvantage that not only silences the political voices of voters from non-competitive states but gives unwarranted power to those in competitive states.
References
Patterson, E., T. (2016). We the People: An Introduction to American Government (12 th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional Publishing.
Rakove, J. (2000 December 19). The Accidental Electors. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/19/opinion/the-accidental-electors.html .
Illing, S. (2016 November 12). The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states. Vox . Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar
Johnson, S. (2016 December 3). Why Blue States Are the Real ‘Tea Party’ . The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/opinion/sunday/why-blue-states-are-the-real-tea-party.html .
B Seipel. (2017, January 25). US no longer considered 'full democracy,' group says [ blog post]. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/blog-summaries/316085-us-no-longer-considered-full-democracy
