I don’t believe the electoral college represents the American people, in many ways. Many argue that the electoral college makes things more fair and gives smaller states equal representation to that of larger states, but the truth is, the electoral college wasn’t even made to create equal representation, and it still doesn’t do that today. For a state with a smaller population, their votes count as more because there are less votes - there are less people to represent. People would argue that this makes things “fair”, but giving a state - even if it does have a smaller population - more influence than a large state, still isn’t equal. One state still has more influence and power than another. Not only that, but the “winner takes all” strategy doesn’t correctly represent American’s decision, either. Even if one party wins a state by a single percentage (51%), that party stills gets 100% of those state’s votes. 49% of that state, while not the majority, is still a very large part of that state with zero representation. Yet another reason, is that while it may seem unfair that a state has more influence because of larger population, a state with more people residing in it also has more types of people residing in it, while states with a smaller population, and therefore less people to represent, may have less diversity but more influence. The Electoral College, explained states: “If we look at the states with a lot of electoral votes, for not a lot of people, and the states with little electoral votes for a lot of people, these states (the states with more electoral votes) are a lot whiter and less diverse than the rest of America.” The simplicity of it is that a greater population consists of a greater diversity.
I also think the electoral college should be abolished. History shows that the main people benefiting from this system are republicans. For example, Donald Trump v. Hilliary Clinton (2016) and George Bush v. Al Gore (2000). Two examples of republican presidents who did not win the votes casted by their people, but did win the electoral college over. History also shows that despite majority of Americans wanting the electoral college gone, despite getting close to their goal in the process, republicans (who benefit from the system) defend the electoral college, and the abolishment ends up getting blocked. Despite both political parties being in agreement when trying to abolish the electoral college in 1969, it was, for the second time, blocked by white southerners. The history of the electoral college also isn’t doing it any favors. In a country proud of freedom and diversity, we continue to use a system built off racism and slavery, traced back all the way to the three-fifths compromise, where states with less population but lots of enslaved people wanted those enslaved people to count, despite not even being able to vote or express their opinion, they simply wanted more representation. A common pro-electoral college argument is that if smaller state’s votes didn’t matter as much as they did, then those smaller state’s issues might be given less attention or importance. But the fact is, despite these smaller state’s given more influence, they still aren’t a presidential candidate’s main priority - the swing states are. Swing states can be any state, big or small, so states with less population are never guaranteed to be given much attention. For example, The Electoral College, explained says: “But they (Hilliary Clinton and Donald Trump) both visited Florida 35 or more times.” Florida is a state with a large population and relatively little influence in the electoral college because of that, yet it was still both candidates priority because it was a swing state. Regardless of influence or representation in the electoral college, small state’s issues won’t gain attention anyways if a candidate knows regardless of whether or not they campaign there, that state is already theirs for the taking.
Answer (1)
Your argument against the Electoral College raises several important points about representation, fairness, and the historical context of the system. Here’s a summary and analysis of the key points you made:Disproportionate Influence: You highlight that smaller states have a disproportionately higher influence in the Electoral College compared to larger states. This is due to the minimum of three electoral votes assigned to each state, regardless of population. As a result, the votes of individuals in less populous states carry more weight than those in larger states, which undermines the principle of equal representation.Winner-Takes-All System: The winner-takes-all approach used by most states means that a candidate can win all of a state's electoral votes by securing just over half of the popular vote in that state. This can lead to significant portions of the electorate feeling unrepresented, as their votes do not contribute to the final outcome.Diversity and Representation: You argue that larger states, which tend to be more diverse, have their voices diluted in the Electoral College system. This raises concerns about the representation of various demographics and interests, as smaller, less diverse states may have an outsized influence on national policy.Historical Context: You point out the origins of the Electoral College in the context of slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise, suggesting that the system was designed to favor certain states and demographics. This historical baggage raises questions about its legitimacy in a modern, diverse democracy.Political Dynamics: You note that the Electoral College has historically benefited Republican candidates, as seen in the elections of 2000 and 2016, where candidates won the presidency without winning the popular vote. This has led to a perception that the system is maintained by those who benefit from it, creating a barrier to reform.Swing States: Your argument about swing states illustrates that candidates focus their efforts on states that could go either way, regardless of their population size. This means that even states with a smaller population may not receive attention if they are not competitive, further complicating the notion that the Electoral College ensures that all states' issues are addressed.Public Sentiment: You mention that there is significant public support for abolishing the Electoral College, yet political obstacles remain. This disconnect between public opinion and political action raises concerns about the responsiveness of the political system to the will of the people.In conclusion, your argument presents a compelling case for reevaluating the Electoral College. It raises critical questions about fairness, representation, and the historical context of the system. The debate over the Electoral College is complex, involving legal, political, and social dimensions, and your points contribute to a broader discussion about how best to ensure that all Americans have a voice in the democratic process.
