Abolishing the Electoral College
A Case for the Direct Election of the President
The United States uses a system called the Electoral College to elect its president and vice president. The number of electors varies by state from 3 in Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, and the District of Columbia to 55 in California. Electors consist of the representatives and senators in a given state, and the number of electors depends on the state's population. The number of electors translates to the number of electoral votes a state has. However, due to reliance on census data and the nature of the Electoral College, the number of electoral votes is not always reflective of a state's population. For example, the most recent allocation of electoral votes is based on 2010 census data and will be in effect for the next 3 presidential elections. Because population is volatile, it is possible for the ranking of states by population to fluctuate. Because the Electoral College will not adjust to reflect these changes, it is possible for a more populous state to have fewer electoral votes than a less populous state. But even if this isn't the case, even if the ranking of states by population matches the ranking of states by electoral votes, the distribution of electoral votes is far from proportional to the distribution of people in each state. Consider Wyoming, the least populous state in the nation with 563,626 people, and California, the most populous state with 37,253,956 people. Although California has more electoral votes than Wyoming (55 to 3), the ratio of electoral votes to population between the two states is drastically different. Each elector in California represents 677,345 people while each elector in Wyoming represents 187,875. In general, less populous have greater representation in the Electoral College. But it isn't as simple as that. Swing states also have an arbitrarily and disproportionately high amount of power in electing the president. For example, a resident of Florida, a swing state, may have significantly more influence on an election than a resident of Texas, a safe state.
I advocate abolishing the Electoral College and adopting the national popular vote as the metric for electing the president. Using the national popular vote allows the people to directly elect their leader of choice. In a direct election, the candidate that receives the most votes wins, regardless of which state those votes come from. Unlike the Electoral College, a direct election ensures each vote is equally weighted. Under the current system, the winner determined by the Electoral College does not always correspond with the winner of the national popular vote. What that means is pretty counterintuitive; even if more than 50% of the American people support a candidate, that does not guarantee he or she will win the election. If you ask me, that's inconsistent with the ideals of a democracy. This has occurred on several occasions, most recently in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush. With the implementation of a direct election, I also advocate using instant-runoff voting (IRV) in all single-winner elections. I touched on the benefits of this electoral method in my previous article, The Absence of Self-Determination (referred to as Single Transferable Voting).
To further illustrate the drawbacks of the Electoral College, consider the upcoming 2012 presidential election. It is possible (incredibly unlikely but possible) for a candidate to receive 78.2% of the national popular vote but still lose the election. If, say, Romney were to sweep the highly-populated, under-represented states and Obama were to barely win a majority of the smaller, over-represented states, Romney could garner the support of 78.2% of the American people but still lose to Obama because of the Electoral College. Of course, this is an extreme, hypothetical scenario, but the fact that it is a possibility is pretty astonishing.
The United States uses a system called the Electoral College to elect its president and vice president. The number of electors varies by state from 3 in Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, and the District of Columbia to 55 in California. Electors consist of the representatives and senators in a given state, and the number of electors depends on the state's population. The number of electors translates to the number of electoral votes a state has. However, due to reliance on census data and the nature of the Electoral College, the number of electoral votes is not always reflective of a state's population. For example, the most recent allocation of electoral votes is based on 2010 census data and will be in effect for the next 3 presidential elections. Because population is volatile, it is possible for the ranking of states by population to fluctuate. Because the Electoral College will not adjust to reflect these changes, it is possible for a more populous state to have fewer electoral votes than a less populous state. But even if this isn't the case, even if the ranking of states by population matches the ranking of states by electoral votes, the distribution of electoral votes is far from proportional to the distribution of people in each state. Consider Wyoming, the least populous state in the nation with 563,626 people, and California, the most populous state with 37,253,956 people. Although California has more electoral votes than Wyoming (55 to 3), the ratio of electoral votes to population between the two states is drastically different. Each elector in California represents 677,345 people while each elector in Wyoming represents 187,875. In general, less populous have greater representation in the Electoral College. But it isn't as simple as that. Swing states also have an arbitrarily and disproportionately high amount of power in electing the president. For example, a resident of Florida, a swing state, may have significantly more influence on an election than a resident of Texas, a safe state.
I advocate abolishing the Electoral College and adopting the national popular vote as the metric for electing the president. Using the national popular vote allows the people to directly elect their leader of choice. In a direct election, the candidate that receives the most votes wins, regardless of which state those votes come from. Unlike the Electoral College, a direct election ensures each vote is equally weighted. Under the current system, the winner determined by the Electoral College does not always correspond with the winner of the national popular vote. What that means is pretty counterintuitive; even if more than 50% of the American people support a candidate, that does not guarantee he or she will win the election. If you ask me, that's inconsistent with the ideals of a democracy. This has occurred on several occasions, most recently in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush. With the implementation of a direct election, I also advocate using instant-runoff voting (IRV) in all single-winner elections. I touched on the benefits of this electoral method in my previous article, The Absence of Self-Determination (referred to as Single Transferable Voting).
To further illustrate the drawbacks of the Electoral College, consider the upcoming 2012 presidential election. It is possible (incredibly unlikely but possible) for a candidate to receive 78.2% of the national popular vote but still lose the election. If, say, Romney were to sweep the highly-populated, under-represented states and Obama were to barely win a majority of the smaller, over-represented states, Romney could garner the support of 78.2% of the American people but still lose to Obama because of the Electoral College. Of course, this is an extreme, hypothetical scenario, but the fact that it is a possibility is pretty astonishing.