Growing up in a family of five led to thousands of disputes over every subject imaginable. Whether we should get ice cream at Sunny Daes or Carvel. Go to the beach or go to the pool. Whatever the circumstance was we always took a vote, and when the majority wanted to Sunny Daes we went to Sunny Daes, and when the majority wanted to go to the pool, we went to the pool. This system works, it makes sense on any basis. This brings to mind the question, why does our government not work the same way? Times change, with this brings different opinions and policies that govern what we think is right and wrong, and our government has been productive enough to adapt our society to these new forms of right and wrong. In this new adapted society people have changed, education is a basic human right thus it should be assumed that we do not need the electoral voters looking out for the best interest of the people.
Millions of people were outraged after the results of the current election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin, however Trump won a majority of the electoral college votes, this has happened five times in U.S history, the more I thought about it, the more I wondered “This doesn’t make sense.”After research I realized the electoral college was created for the protection of the U.S people, they believed that a vote that directly elected the president would mean that a tyrant could manipulate the citizens and come to power. (Schulman) Although this does not seem very feasible, Hitler was able to infiltrate the German government legally, which is a very terrifying thought. This effectively attempts to prevent a situation similar to this. Also without the electoral college small states would lose all influence in the election, leaders would only campaign in the large states where the most votes are, and states like Wyoming, and Vermont would get neglected .
In the history of the United States, there has never been a tyrannical leader that caused mass amounts of problems, which forces the deeper thinking into the question of are we being protected, or being misrepresented? The electoral college works with the winner take all philosophy, so even if the candidate wins by an incredibly small margin of votes they still receive all of the electoral votes for the state. Therefore up to almost half of the state's votes would be rendered worthless. So perhaps abolishing the entire electoral college would not be necessary rather just some aspects such as this.
The second major reason for the electoral college is to ensure that smaller states are represented, however this causes certain inequalities in the system. This suggest that one person’s vote can value more than another person's. For example California has 55 electoral college votes, although this is more than other states, they also have a population of approximately 37,254,503 meaning that each electoral vote represents 677,355 people each while in Wyoming the approximate population is 563,767 with its three electoral votes, this means each electoral vote represents 187,923. This means a person voting in Wyoming has an impact that is about 3.6 times larger than a voter in California. Which personally seems unconstitutional, even if it is in the best interest of the states.
Amount of Electoral Votes by State
I stumbled upon a startling statistic during my research for this project During the 2016 election a study by the U.S Elections Project estimated only 58% of eligible voters casted their ballot. If everyone had voted in the past election it is almost certain that the outcome would have changed either by Trump winning the popular vote or Hillary Clinton winning the electoral vote. Although I do not agree with the idea of not voting, upon further research I came to the realization that people choose not to vote because they feel their vote does not count, on a large scale level because of the winner takes all philosophy of the electoral college. So even if a little less than half of a state voted for one candidate, they receive no representation on the electoral college level. Leaving them with the feeling that they are not represented correctly and taking the value out of voting for those individuals.
Elections where the most people voted ended in democratic elections.
Diversity of the electors is also an idea that is called into question when pondering the ethicality of the electoral college. When first created, the electoral college did protect the nation because as a developing country the educational system was not necessarily the best and the education was not at all similar to how it is today. Therefore the electoral college was a group of educated men, which in part meant they were rich. I thought this at the time was necessary because the educated men could more intelligently cast votes to protect the nation from itself. I believe that this patterned has somewhat continued as our nation has progressed. Although the average intelligence of the U.S citizen has improved the types of electoral voters have not. Rather a majority of them are wealthy, caucasian, males. Which represents only one type of voters, leaving the rest of the other types of capable voters misrepresented.
It was very hard for me to develop a stance on this subject, on one hand I felt like the electoral college was not in the best interest of people rather they were being misrepresented, while on the other hand it felt like the without the electoral college, our country would be left vulnerable. Saying this I felt the only possible solution to this problem would be compromise. Therefore I believe that the electoral college should still be instated in the U.S constitution, however the winner takes all policy should be changed to better represent the number of people who voted for the specific candidate to ensure the process is as democratic as possible.