The Electoral College: Whose Interest is it Really Reflecting?

The Birth of the Electoral College

It is crucial to keep in mind that before generating ideas or theories about a particular
subject it is important to gain sufficient and credible knowledge surrounding that subject.
It is also important to steer away from bias and remain open minded. There is nothing
more harmful than making assumptions based on fallacy. We need to refrain from
begging the question, red herring, appeal to majority, ad hominem and so on.
So before we can can analyze what should be done with the electoral college we need
to first understand the history behind it.
Prior to the constitutional in which we are under today the statesopperated under The
Articles of Confederation which in a short manner of time proved to be be weak, Shay
rebellion in 1786 brought this to light ("Independence and the Articles of
Confederation").The constitutional convention of 1787 thrived towards the pursuit of a
strong centeral government and developing federalisim.In regards to presidential
election an emphasis was placed on reform. There was a need to structure a system
which implemented fairness among national and state government as well as
presidency and congress. A huge goal of reform was to resolve conflict between large
and small states dissolving suspicions surrounding central government (Clayton 2007).
To provide democracy without an over allowance of power that may lead to radicalism.
Thus the birth of the electoral college.
One proposal was to have congress elect the president but this was rejected due
to the concern that it would disrupt the balance of power between legislative and
executive branches of national government.
Another proposal was to have state legislature bear the responsibility of electing
the president but this idea was believed to compromise the concept of
independent government.
A third proposal was direct popular vote of the people and though the basis for its
rejection is disputed it is generally agreed that rejection derived from the idea that
citizens would lack the information to make intelligent decisions resulting in
default of the democratic process.
One objection towards this assumption made by kimberling who believed that the
rejection of the proposal stemmed not from the doubt of public intelligence but
rather from the fear that insufficient information would lead to votes being cast
towards a "favorite son" (Kimberling 1992). Meaning that votes would not be
based on a candidates political views but rather naive support of region or state.

Finally a "committee of eleven" proposed an indirect election of the president through a

College of electors. The original structure is described in Article II, Section 1 of the
constitution, stated in brief that each state was given a number of electors equal to the
number of senators and representatives which it was entitled to, the number of senators
and representatives awarded to a state being based on population. The choosing of the
electors being left up to state legislature.
Congress and federal employees were not allowed to serve as electors, Electors were
required to cast two votes one of which was required to be from another state, Electoral
votes would be opened by the President of Senate in front of both houses of congress,
the candidate who received the majority (over 50%) of the vote became president and
the one who came in second became vice, In the event that no one received majority
the decision would be left up to the U.S House representative among the top five
(Kimberling 1992).
Movements that Lead to the Electoral College Today
While the Electoral College functions are similar to that of it's original structure,
changes have been implemented.
In 1804 the twelfth amendment was adopted. Requiring Electors to cast a single
ballot towards the President and Vice President. The practice of the runner up
assuming vice presidency was dropped. The reason behind this was a response
to the issue in 1800 where Thomas Jefferson tied with vice presidential candidate
Aaron Burr (Clayton 2007). This change contributed to development of the
structure in political parties.
1836 All states implemented the choosing of Electors by a direct statewide
popular vote with the exception of South Carolina who did not adapt this until
1860
In 1854 the Republican party was established, In contrast the Democratic party
was establish in 1792. Though 1864 marks the true beginning of the two-party
system we know today.

In 1961 the twenty third amendment was ratified allowing the district of columbia
to participate in elections and being assigned three Electors.
Today the winner takes all system is used by all states with the exception of
Maine and Nebraska.

Degeneracy of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was created over 200 years ago and it is a system we still utilize
today and while it has seemed to work this doesnt mean that change is needed. When
we consider the reason/s behind the rejection of direct popular vote, whether it was due
to the citizens lacking the intelligence to make informed decisions or the fear that a lack
of sufficient information would prevent them from voting without favoritism, it is evident
these reasons do not hold the same relevance that they once did.
When the Electoral College was first formed, campaigning abilities were relatively nonexistent, access to education was limited and congressional government was new.
Since then government and society have grown, many technological advances have
been made, campaigning efforts are now huge and the access to education and
informative resources are comparatively colossal to the 1700s.
I am not contesting the plausibility of ill-informed and biased citizens casting ballots but
rather affirming that a greater access to education creates more knowledgeable citizens
with the ability to make informed decisions and utilize critical thinking.
This being said bias behavior also has the ability to reflect through the electoral college.
Representation of the Electoral College is based on population which is determined by
census, each state receiving a minimum of three votes as well as additional votes
assigned for each seat the state holds. This causes the citizens of some states to be
grossly over represented.This system also doesnt include residents of Puerto Rico,
Guam and the Virgin Islands even though they are U.S citizens (Bolinger 2007). What
does this mean? It means that citizens are not equally represented, this provides for
breeding grounds for bias behavior as it encourages one to more aggressively pursue
the votes of particular states while paying less attention to others. A presidential
candidate should aim to win the votes of the nation as whole. Bias and unfair practice is
also reflected as some citizens are deprived of their right to select who governs them.
Then there is the issue that the outcome of the vote in each state determines a slate of
electors who then, in turn, make the actual choice of president and vice president. So
this brings us to the issue that while often times the popular vote is represented through
a candidate does have the ability to win the majority of electoral votes regardless of
popular vote.Though this has only happened in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 (Walbert
n.d). This is often thought to stem from electors chosen by particular parties, pledged to
vote for those parties instead turn around and cast their ballots in favor of an opposing
party an elector who does this is referred to as a faithless elector. There is no federal
law prohibiting this and while some states have set laws requiring electors to honor their
pledges action has yet to be taken upon an elector ("The Electoral College").Today a
candidate needs to win 270 out of 538 votes.

In correlation with this issue there is the winner-take-all system. As I mention in the
section The Electoral College Today All but 48 states utilize this system and while it
may seem harmless it has great potential to generate negativity. Since the majority of
the population identifies with either Republican Or Democratic parties as well as the
substantial disadvantages in campaign spending, Independent parties often have little
support and ultimately no chance of winning a state (especially in a winner-take-all
system) let alone an election, Instead they serve as a gap between a Republican and
Democrats chances of winning.
When we look at the electoral college one of three things come to mind, keep it, reform
it or abolish it.
Proposition for Reform
While all systems have undeniable flaws not all flaws have to be accepted. As many of
the flaws within the Electoral College are completely unnecessary, change is obligatory.
There is a great need to redefine our government so that it indeed reflects a
government of the people, for the people, by the people (Lincoln 1863).
As much as I would like to say that abolishing the Electoral College would bring about
the most prominent and promising change, I cannot. So I propose for reform. Some
might ask, why reform instead of abolition? Abolishing the Electoral College poses its
own set of threats that would result in more devastating consequences than the
dysfunction we see in the Electoral College today. A system derived upon the idea of
direct popular vote has great potential to lead to chaos. We are just not ready for this
big of a change. It would be impractical to ignore that despite the growing numbers of
the educated there are those who would vote for the wrong reasons and cast votes
without thought, abusing the system. The Electoral isn't necessarily bad it does ensure
structure which popular vote has the potential to disrupt, it is just flawed. It is wise to
reflect upon the ages in which we attempted to live under the the articles of
confederation and the impacts in regards to the absence of strong government before
the Electoral College. It is equally wise to remember that power wasnt always
distributed among citizens as it is today, indicating progression.

My first proposition would be to grant the citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin
Islands ability to have Electors represent them, the District of Columbia is entitled to
three Electoral votes and it isnt even a state not to mention the population to Electoral
vote being quite disproportioned. As citizens of the United States they too should have
to opportunity to have a say in who is governing them.

My second proposition for reform would be to adopt The district-system as Maine and
Nebraska have, one electoral vote is awarded to the presidential candidate who wins
the popular in each congressional district, and the remaining two electoral votes are
awarded to the candidates receiving the most votes statewide. It is also possible under
the district system to split the electoral vote -- some districts may elect a Democratic
elector, while others elect a Republican elector ("The Electoral College"). While still
maintaining the basics of the Electoral structure it would also give more power to the
people without giving too much. It would be an excellent compromise. It would also tear
away from the idea that votes dont matter especially within states that are dominated
by a particular party.Thus also having the potential power to encourage a greater
involvement among citizens. This would have the potential to stop the pursuit of winning
the vote of particular states.
In conclusion:
I don't assume that my propositions are without error nor do I recognize them as the
only hope for reform, but from my research and knowledge I find these proposals to
have potential. We don't need to jump to radical solution when there is room for
cooperative solution. Without knowing the history behind the Electoral College system it
can be quite difficult to wrap your head around the reason we do things this way, it a
system which more citizens need to recognize and comprehend. Also while true reform
that corrects the flaws within the system may be far away it is equally important to
realize that at this time voting in the caucuses and primaries is where your vote really
counts (although I must say I disagree with states having stipulation on who can vote for
based on registration). One of the most detrimental things that a person can do is
disregard their ability to make a difference, even when the odds seem to be against you
knowing, supporting and standing up for what you believe in should be a priority.

Work Cited:
Independence and the Articles of Confederation. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2014,
from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2b.asp
Clayton, D. M. (2007). The Electoral College: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and
Gone. Black Scholar, 37(3), 28-41.
Kimberling, W. (1992, May 1). THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Retrieved November 28,
2014, from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
Clayton, D. M. (2007). The Electoral College: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and
Gone. Black Scholar, 37(3), 28-41.

Bolinger, B. (2007). POINT: ABOLISHING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. International

Social Science Review, 82(3/4), 179-182.
Walbert, D. (n.d.). Does my vote count? Understanding the electoral college. Retrieved
December 10, 2014,
fromhttp://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert723200402/electoralcollege.html#2c
The Electoral College. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2014, from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx
Lincolin, A. (1863, November 19). The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln.
Retrieved December 10, 2014, from
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm