Should the Electoral College be Banned

Exclusively available on PapersOwl
Updated: Mar 14, 2023
Cite this
Date added
Pages:  5
Order Original Essay

How it works

The electoral college was created as one of many methods for electing the Presidents. It is one of the most efficient voting methods and has proven to on many occasions that it is the ultimate one. To determine the president, five hundred thirty-eight electors from the states cast a ballot for the candidate receiving the majority support. For any election having the majority vote can affect someone’s campaign greatly. The number of electoral votes each state has depends on the amount of people found within the state.

Need a custom essay on the same topic?
Give us your paper requirements, choose a writer and we’ll deliver the highest-quality essay!
Order now

For example, Texas has thirty eight electoral votes while a less populated states like Wyoming has only three electoral votes. A majority of electoral votes are required to win which is currently two hundred seventy electoral votes. There are flaws in every system, and our electoral college has many. However, a system is better than having no system. It is one of the biggest controversial debates in government, and people think we should use the popular vote, but as a matter of fact we should not use it. We should keep the electoral college because it guarantees the certainty to the presidential outcome, ensures that all parts of the country are involved, and it facilitates a two-party system.

The electoral college guarantees the certainty to the presidential outcome. The electoral college because was created for the precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections. A runoff election is an initial vote that did not result in a winner because it was tied or too close to call. It also creates a larger mandate that gives the president more credibility. “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 the election had the electoral and the popular votes going to the same candidate. While the electoral colleges have some flaws it seems to be in working condition. The electoral college makes presidential elections less contentious, and confusing by providing a clear ending. We do not need a national recount if you have an electoral college, if one state is having voting problems you will only need to do a recount within that state. If we had to do a national recount that would be a fiasco and it would increase chances of fraud. The electoral college ensures a certainty of return results because it is concentrated, and the results of the electoral decision are final. Even though there are still some flaws in the electoral college the flaws seem less drastic than other voting methods. This voting system guarantees the most credible presidential outcome.

The electoral college ensures that all parts of the country are involved. The electoral college guarantees that the smaller states have a part in it too. If it was based on popular vote than candidates would only have to campaign in the heavily populated states. Presidential candidates would need multiple electoral votes from different regions. They will need to build a platform for their campaign. Candidates would only need to meet the needs of the heavy populated states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Than smaller states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota would not have a say in the election if it is based on popular vote. In the populated states, it is mostly urban areas while in the smaller states, areas found within the state can be described as rural. It gives minority interest a say in the election such as farmers. So, they have different views, but for the rural areas they would not have a say in it if it was based on popular vote. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disfranchised to feel that their votes do not count as much as other states. One of the main flaws about the electoral colleges is the whole swing states debate. Swing states are states that regularly are close in the election and do not have a regular party. The debate is that a state can have fifty-one percent of the population vote for one candidate, but he will receive one hundred percent of the electoral votes. People feel that it is unfair for the candidate to receive all of the votes. Even though this is major flaw I think it is little compared to the other voting systems. The presidential candidate will have no regard for theirs interest because it will not affect the outcome of their campaign. This helps promote national cohesion and helps keep the nation’s political system stable.

The electoral college also facilitates a two-party system. The smaller number of political parties allows for generalized platforms instead of 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 certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up winning the presidential election. It also can increase the risk for a third party to spoil a candidate’s chance of winning, which can discourage people from voting for third-party candidate. A two-party system gives more space for flexibility and changes. It is winner takes all for the states, and their candidate will have a better chance of winning. Most of the time a third party will conform with republican or democrat just to have a voice and gain important objectives. The two major parties will allow this because they will gain more votes. One of the great things about the two-party system is that it makes it easier on the voters. They must choose between the two major parties. Some people do not see the two-party system as a pro thought. Because it limits options and they feel like the parties are very similar. They rather have multiple parties, but the two-party system keeps American politics stable and candidates to the political center. The electoral college promotes a two-party system which helps our voting rather than having a dozen parties.

Just like any system in the world the electoral college supposedly has many “flaws”. When thinking of the many flaws it has, one major criticism is one that just happened recently. In 2016, the election was finally ending, and many people knew without a shadow of doubt that Hillary was going to win. Their reasoning, she won the popular vote. But to their amazement Donald Trump had been declared the winner and the President of The United States. For people who didn’t understand how the voting system worked, this must had been a big shock to them. So, assuming that popularity votes were more important they became angry at the electoral college. Why do these members vote matter more than the people? Is what they said. They matter more because technically “They’re the people’s votes” (What is the Electoral College). When voting for your presidential candidate, you are also voting for the state’s electors too. So, when asking who gives the electoral that much power, the only people you have to blame is the people of the state.

Additionally, many people say we should get rid of the electoral college because without it all the states would have a balance. But this statement is far from the truth. As mentioned above candidates would only need to meet the needs of the heavy populated states. This would mean smaller states would have smaller say. The power of people in those states would become obsolete and the election in general would fail. For example, if we were to get rid of the electoral college, states like Rhode Island with a population of one million people would have far less power compared with a state like Texas with a population of over twenty-eight million. You would only need states that are heavily populated. Thanks to the electoral college things like this are evened out and we don’t have to worry about them. Now I am not saying that the electoral colleges is a perfect system with no flaws at all. But many things people consider flaws are things that can be easily dismissed when you think about it. The electoral college isn’t a perfect system, but it’s the closest thing we have to one.

We should keep the electoral college because it guarantees the certainty to the presidential outcome, ensures that all parts of the country are involved, and it facilitates a two-party system. The electoral college has proven that it is the best voting system to use. The electoral college has been used for over two hundred years, and has only had five little flaws. While if you use any other voting system it will have many more. Why change something if it has worked over two hundred years? No matter what voting systems we use, there will always be arguments over it. Unless there’s a newer more efficient voting system we will continue using the electoral college. There is no need to change the voting system.

The deadline is too short to read someone else's essay
Hire a verified expert to write you a 100% Plagiarism-Free paper

Cite this page

Should the Electoral College be banned. (2019, Nov 01). Retrieved from