The Electoral College has been around for over 200 years and it is safe to say that it has outlived its purpose. Its inherent disenfranchisement has led to some despicable voter turnouts, even in the most hotly contested and important elections. Despite the fact that Republicans and Democrats would not change the current electoral procedure because of the risk of diminishing their own powers, there are potential voting alternatives. However, there are those that staunchly defend the current electoral process.
The aspect of presidential elections that needs to change is the separation of the electorate by states. The president is the only national office which is voted on by the entire populace of the United States. Candidates try to win states instead of appealing to the nation as whole. The minority party in some states, such as Democrats in Texas or Republicans in Connecticut, end up of having no say in the election process because most states are all-or-nothing with regards to distributing delegates. Instead of competing on a state-by-state basis, candidates should be forced to compete on a national scale. This means instead of electing the president by the Electoral College, it should be done by the popular vote. In this system all votes would count evenly. If a candidate obtained more votes that another in a state, they would not win all the delegates, or even the sole support of that state. Instead they would win the number of votes that they accumulated. This would make the presidential election a truly national election.
There are some problems people have with this type of voting method. The first is tradition and the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted a system that has withstood the test of time. However, tradition is no excuse to keep a broken system. The elimination of a state-by-state electoral process also violates what some believe to be the United States' federalist principles. In a sense, an election by popular vote impedes on states' rights to institute their own election procedures. The United States was founded on a principle of federalism, a nation of loosely aligned states in national government, as a way to prevent the consolidation of power into a central government. However, federalist principles do not ensure a fair and just election procedure, especially for those of the minority party in a single state. The changing of the voting method is not something that would profoundly impact the rights of all states. It will ensure that all the votes are counted. States will still have the rights to elect senators and representatives to serve their interests. A truly national election will not impede states' rights to make their own laws and govern their people as they see fit in certain circumstances. Instead it will combat disenfranchisement by ensuring all citizens that their votes are actually counted.
The United States is also not solely a federalist nation. There are government agencies which have jurisdiction over all states. These include the FDA, CIA, FBI, DEA and even the IRS. The federal government taxes people in all states. Even the education system has become federally regulated. The No Child Left Behind Act, though controversial, is a piece of legislation that governs all states and ensures guidelines as to how to implement certain requirements in the public education system. The most anti-federalist organizations are the armed forces. Most states do not have a militia for times of unrest to protect themselves against a central government. Instead the country rallies behind a national army. Why is it then not appropriate for the citizens to rally behind a nationally-elected president?
One of the more convincing arguments to keep the Electoral College in place is that it requires that a candidate gain a broad range of popular support throughout the country. According to uselectionatlas.org, "it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire." This view contributes to the notion that the president, because of a broad support base, is the citizens' choice even if they lost the popular vote because the person who won the popular vote could have garnered their votes only from a certain portion of the country.
However, just because a region is more populated does not mean its say should be diminished by limiting the number of electoral votes. A vote in a more populated region, such as the northeast, can still be offset by the many votes garnered thorough out a more sparsely populated but larger region such as the Midwest. Second, and most importantly, when instituted, the Electoral College did not account for the vast changes in technology that has occurred to the present day. The Electoral College ensured that candidates, in a time where there were not even light bulbs, crisscrossed the country and delivered their message to a wider audience than those in just the most populated area. However, with the advent of TV, the internet, YouTube and 24-hour media coverage, campaigning is already done on a national scale. Even the poorest people in this country usually have access to a TV. Candidates are constantly under spotlight and scrutiny and are always campaigning to a national audience. Whether a candidate visits a certain state may be an issue for some voters, but in the end it is the issues that should matter.
A change in the election process would end some disenfranchisement, minus the absurd ballot access laws in some states that prevent third parties from joining the tickets. More people would feel like their votes counted and in turn voter turnout would increase substantially resulting in a truly nationally elected president.
Weekly Columnist Greg Pivarnik is an 8th semester molecullar and cell biology major. His column appears on Tuesdays. He can be contacted at Gregory.Pivarnik@UConn.edu.
1 comments