Matthew Klein

Electoral College
Every state in the United Statesand nearly every democratic country in the world
elects their officials at almost every level through the conduction of an election in which the
candidate who is able to receive the most votes, either with a majority or plurality, is declared
the winner. Democracy, in its simplest form, argues the vitality of ensuring that the candidate
desired by the largest portion of the electorate should then assume the position for which they
ran. Thus, it would seem logical that allowing the losing candidate to win would be inherently
undemocratic.
But in the most important election in the worldthe election for the guardian of peace
and freedom on Earththat most fundamental principle of a democratic institution is ignored.
The United States, as has now happened five times in its history, has elected the lesser-desired
candidate by a more significant margin than at any point since the first election in 1788. At long
last, it is time for the Electoral College, in which states cast their votes as an entity through a
winner-take-all system, to be abolished in its entirety, and to be replaced by a national popular
vote to assure the preservation of democracy.
Supporters of the Electoral College cite that it allows smaller, less-populous states (like
New Hampshire or Iowa) to still be relevant in national presidential elections, whereas they
would be otherwise ignored. As such, these smaller states thus often get much-needed
attention and potentially even political or economic benefits.
This argument fails to take into account several factors. First, giving smaller states a
larger voice was in no way the intention of the Electoral College as devised by Alexander
Hamilton or any of the framers. Rather, it was to prevent an uneducated electorate from
electing someone who could be potentially damaging to the political system of the United
States. Each state would choose electors to convene and vote based on how their state
wanted, but would be prepared to cast a vote for someone else should the winning candidate
pose a significant threat to the country.
Additionally, the modern Electoral College essentially alienates millions of people from
participating in the political process, where voter turnout is already embarrassingly low.
Democrats in deep red states and Republicans in deep blue ones are highly unmotivated to
vote because they know that the allotment of their states Electoral votes, however many that
may be, will be awarded to the candidate of the political party heavily favored in those states.
Additionally, its supporters suggest that smaller states will be ignored. That likely will be
true; the Democrats will aim mostly for California and the Republicans for Texas. But theres
nothing wrong with that. If most people live there, then, according to the definition of democracy,
it makes sense that they campaign there. Right now, even more people are ignored as
candidates spend all their time in Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire, among few others,
anyway.
The Electoral College is an archaic embarrassment to democracy that sets a horrific
example to the free world and discounts the votes of millions in the political process. For the
betterment of the country, the ignorant system must be abolished.