The Electoral College: a Timeless System for Presidential Elections

Established by the founders, the Electoral College represents states' interests in electing leaders. It stands as one of the most efficient voting methods and has proven on many occasions to be the ultimate one. In determining the president, 538 electors from the states cast a ballot for the candidate receiving the majority support. For any election, securing the majority vote can significantly impact a candidate's campaign. The number of electoral votes each state possesses depends on the population within the state. This system is a key component of American democracy, balancing the influence of both populous and less populous states.

For example, Texas boasts thirty-eight electoral votes, while less populated states such as Wyoming have only three electoral votes. A majority of electoral votes are required to win the presidency, which currently stands at 270 electoral votes. Like any system, the Electoral College has its flaws. However, having a structured system is better than having no system at all. It remains one of the most controversial debates in government, with some advocating for the popular vote. However, keeping the Electoral College is essential because it guarantees the certainty of the presidential outcome, ensures that all parts of the country are involved, and facilitates a two-party system.

Certainty of Outcome

The Electoral College guarantees certainty in the presidential outcome. It was designed to preclude calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections, which are initial votes that do not result in a winner due to ties or outcomes being too close to call. This system creates a larger mandate that gives the president more credibility. According to historical data, "In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only five times" (Electoral College Fast Facts). Over 90 percent of elections have seen the electoral and popular votes align with the same candidate. While the Electoral College has its flaws, it remains functional. This system reduces the contentiousness of presidential elections by providing a clear conclusion. National recounts are unnecessary with the Electoral College, as issues in one state only require a state-level recount. A national recount could lead to chaos and increase the chances of fraud. By concentrating the voting process, the Electoral College ensures a credible presidential outcome.

Involving All Regions

The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in the election process. It guarantees that smaller states have a voice. If the election were based solely on the popular vote, candidates would only need to campaign in heavily populated states. Presidential candidates require electoral votes from various regions, compelling them to build comprehensive platforms. Without the Electoral College, candidates would focus only on populous states like California, New York, Texas, and Florida. In contrast, smaller states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota would lose influence. Rural areas, which often differ in their concerns from urban centers, would be overlooked. The Electoral College gives minority interests, such as farmers, a say in the election. Residents in different regions might feel disenfranchised if their votes appear less significant. Although there is debate over the influence of swing states, where the winner takes all electoral votes, this flaw is minor compared to the benefits. The system promotes national cohesion and maintains political stability.

Facilitating a Two-Party System

The Electoral College also facilitates a two-party system. A smaller number of political parties leads to broader platforms rather than parties focused on specific issues. "It is very hard for a third party to break through at the national level. The last time a third party gained an electoral vote was George Wallace in 1968" (About the Electors). This means there is a degree of certainty about how the government will operate, regardless of which major party wins. The risk of a third party spoiling a candidate's chances discourages votes for third-party candidates. A two-party system offers flexibility and adaptability, with a winner-takes-all approach enhancing candidates' chances. Often, third parties align with Republicans or Democrats to gain a voice and achieve objectives. The two major parties benefit from this by gaining more votes. Critics argue that a two-party system limits choices, but it keeps American politics stable and candidates aligned with the political center. The Electoral College's promotion of a two-party system enhances the electoral process.

Like any system, the Electoral College has its purported "flaws." One major criticism arose recently in 2016 when many believed Hillary Clinton would win due to her popular vote lead. However, Donald Trump was declared the winner, shocking those unfamiliar with the system. Critics asked why Electoral College votes mattered more than individual votes, not realizing that electors represent the people's choice within each state. Calls to abolish the Electoral College, arguing for balanced state influence, ignore the benefits it provides. Without it, smaller states would wield less power, and elections would be dominated by populous states. The Electoral College balances these dynamics, ensuring equitable representation.

In conclusion, the Electoral College should be preserved because it guarantees certainty in presidential outcomes, involves all regions, and supports a two-party system. Having been in use for over two centuries with few significant issues, it remains the best system available. Change is unnecessary without a proven superior alternative. While debates will always exist over voting systems, the Electoral College is the foundation upon which American presidential elections function, and it should continue to be utilized.

Did you like this example?

629

26