Is the Electoral College an Excellent Way to Elect the President?

The Electoral College is a complex and often controversial system used to elect the President of the United States. Those who support the Electoral College claim it is an ideal system designed by the Founding Fathers, whereas others argue it is outdated and needs reform. This article explores both arguments, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding for readers.

Historical Context and Design Philosophy

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College with the intention of ensuring that smaller states maintained a level of power. They designed the system to be proportional and to represent the will of the people. Proponents often cite the original design as evidence of its excellence, suggesting that it is a perfect system that only "God could have made it any more perfect."

Criticism of the Electoral College

Critics argue that the Electoral College often results in a minority president, where the candidate with the most overall votes does not win. Examples such as the states of New York, Illinois, and California highlight areas where the Electoral College often works against the popular vote, leading to a perceived imbalance.

Leo mentions that high tax and violent crime states often result from relying solely on popular vote, implying that a more representative system is needed. Critics also argue that the “winner-takes-all” system in many states and the disproportionate power given to smaller states are major flaws.

Proposed Reforms

To address the issues surrounding the Electoral College, some propose states to allocate their electors proportionately based on the popular vote in the state. This would ensure that states do not have winner-takes-all systems and that every vote carries equal weight, regardless of the state.

For example, in Pennsylvania (PA), where Trump received 45% and Biden 50% of the popular vote, the allocation of electoral votes could be adjusted to reflect this. Trump might receive 4.5 electoral votes, Biden 5, and the remaining 10.5 divided between third parties. This would ensure that each vote is counted and reflects the true will of the people.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Reforming the Electoral College to a proportional system would certainly address many of the criticisms. It would ensure that the popular vote is more representative and that minority presidents are less likely to occur.

However, there are potential downsides. Critics argue that it could make it more difficult to win the presidency without capturing key swing states, which could lead to political instability. Reforming the Electoral College to a proportional system might also reduce the power of smaller states, redefining the balance between rural and urban areas.

Another scenario mentioned by Leo is that if large states and cities were to dictate every president, then California and New York would end up deciding every administration, which could pose significant challenges to the national unity and stability.

Leo doesn't have a huge problem with the Electoral College but acknowledges that it makes it harder to win without getting the highest percentage of votes in swing states. He also points out that the system has somewhat worked well until now, helping to navigate through tough times.

Conclusion

The Electoral College remains a contentious topic in American politics. Whether it is an ideal system or needs reform, this article has highlighted key arguments from both sides. Pros and cons of reform must be carefully considered to ensure that any changes reflect the true will of the people and maintain the integrity of the democratic process.

As the issue will continue to spark debate, it is important for all parties to engage in thoughtful dialogue and consider the broader implications of any changes made to this fundamental aspect of U.S. elections.