Debates on whether to favor a single national vote over the Electoral College vote have highlighted the United States political discourse. In the United States, the Electoral College determines who wins the presidency by vote totals in each state. Alexander states, “…the candidate who wins the majority of electoral votes (270) becomes the president” (23). Alexaner continues to say, “…scholars have argued that it is time to replace the Electoral College with a single popular vote system where every vote counts” (25). A national popular vote would determine the presidency based on who gets many votes across the country. The Electoral College is anti-democratic because the presidency can be won despite losing the popular vote. Birch said, “…Donald Trump and George W. Bush became presidents despite losing the popular vote” (315). These technicalities have raised a debate on whether the Electoral College should be abolished for a national popular vote. This essay will argue that popular vote is better than Electoral College system because it eliminates the dominance of battleground states, inequality, national disunity, and the winner-takes-all system.
A national popular vote should is better than the Electoral College system because the latter encourages dominance by battleground states. The technicalities of the Electoral College system means that candidates focus on battleground states that are up for grabs to win the election. The outcome of the presidency depends on the voting patterns of these battleground states. Battleground states are states where the margin of victory is less than 5%. In the United States, six out of 50 states fall in the battleground states bracket. The states include North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. The battleground states mean that the United States presidential election is determined by six states (Alexander 41-54). The states have dominated the United States political discourse because of the role they play in the election. The dominance is the reason why recent studies have shown four out of five votes of Americans did not count in the 2012 presidential election. In popular vote systems, all the votes would be valuable because they determine who wins the presidency. A popular vote is ideal because it would break the battleground states' dominance to ensure that the fate of the presidency goes to all Americans (Alexander 60-69).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Inequality is the other reason why a popular vote is better than the Electoral College system. In the Electoral College system, there are many Americans who know that their votes will not make a difference in a presidential election. For instance, democrats and republicans in Texas and California, respectively, know there is no chance that their votes can count in a presidential election. A democratic vote in a republican state does not count because the winner takes all. Inequality is the reason why voter turnout in the United States is low. For example, in 2016, the voter turnout was 55%. Alexander says, “…in 2016, only 538 voters decided the presidency” (89). Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won election on electoral votes. Donald Trump became the president despite losing being rejected by the majority of the voters. Hilary Clinton got 65,853,514 (48.2%) popular vote while her counterpart got 62,984,828 (46.1%) votes. Clinton lost the election despite being the favorite candidate of the majority. The 2016 elections show the inequality that comes with the Electoral College system. In popular nations vote, every voter would matter in the election. Candidates in a popular vote system, the process in equal because the best candidate wins, and every vote counts in the outcome. Birch states, “…The equality that comes with the system encourages many voters to participate in the electoral process” (315).
Lastly, a popular vote system is greater because the reason behind the formation of the current system is no longer relevant. The Founding Father of the United States created the system to avoid sinister bias in the electoral system. The Founding Fathers wanted to create a system whereby the unjustified people were not allowed to vote. Alexander affirms, “….Electoral College was created to ensure that voting was reserved only for the elite and educated members of the society” (90). The modern American voters have access to information to make informed electoral decisions. Americans have become more advanced and educated to make rational electoral decisions. Therefore, there should be a system that focuses on making the opinion of every American count. Constitutional amendments have been made to reform other institutions, and it is high time America embraces a more democratic system. For instance, as a result of societal advancement, the constitution was amended to allow former slaves and women to vote. Furthermore, the constitution was amended to change vice presidency being awarded to the runner ups in elections. Birch highlights, “…the amendment was done to reflect the realities of the electoral process in the United States” (317). Therefore, the constitution should be amended to change the elections Electoral College system to popular vote systems that meet the electoral demands of modern America.
One the other hand, one can argue that the Electoral College is greater because a popular vote system encourages voting in highly populated areas. To win an election in a popular vote system, candidates need votes from densely populated regions. Therefore, a popular vote system shifts focus to densely populated areas. As a result, heavily-populated areas would serve the needs of the nation. For instance, farmers of Ohio would be ignored in favor of voters from metropolitan regions. The popular system shifts focus to heavily populated geo-political areas at the expense of small town villages and other marginalized areas.. However, the argument is incorrect because Electoral College gives too much power to the battleground states or minority states that determine elections. The battlegrounds are a handful of states and dictate the outcomes of American electoral discourse. Taking 2016 elections as an example, people could clearly see that presidential candidate campaigned in battle ground states. The focus on these states grew as the election date got closer. The campaign trail of Trump and Clinton shows how the battlegrounds have been elevated in the American elections. The case against the Electoral College vote is stronger because elections in the United States are decided by swings states that are not socially, politically and racially diverse to represent the interests of the nation. The deficiency of the system calls for a diverse system where every vote counts. A popular vote would promote inclusivity, diversity and equality in U.S. elections.
This essay has proven that the popular national vote system is greater than the Electoral College system. Electoral College is anti-democratic because the presidency can be won despite losing the popular vote. The Electoral College system is weaker because it is depicted by dominance of battleground states, inequality of votes, and is a winner-takes-all system. These technicalities make it a complicated system to handle the modern realities of elections. For example, the system creates battleground states that determine outcomes of elections. A handful of battleground states determine the fate of presidential elections on behalf of the entire nation. A popular vote, on the other hand, gives electoral powers to individual voters because of every vote counts.
Work Cited
Alexander, Robert M. Representation and the Electoral College . Oxford University Press, 2019.
Birch, Bayh. "The Electoral College: an Enigma in a Democratic Society." Valparaiso University Law Review . 11.3 (2011).
Neel, Roy. The Electors . Recount Press, 2015.
