Essay Sample on Electoral College vs. Popular Vote

Introduction

The Electoral College was ratified on September 6th, 1787 after lengthy talks at the Constitutional Convention. Several suggestions were fronted, and two key recommendations were that Congress selects the President and adoption of the popular vote. However, both proposals were defeated as opting for Congress to choose the next President would give the legislature total authority over him. The notion of the citizens only voting for the President was axed as the founding fathers of the United States government concluded that the ordinary person would not be rational during the election process. The Electoral College vote and the National Popular vote have been a matter of contention over the years, and both systems will be discussed indicating their strength and weaknesses.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Electoral College constitutes the electors from all states in the country, and the voters choose their representatives in the November elections. Every state has a minimum of three electors, and the contestant is required to garner the overwhelming majority of 270 electoral votes out of the 538 available. The minimum requirement of three electors in each state is because the voters have to choose a member of the Senate and House of Representatives, and all states have two Senate members and one House member. Since the United States has used the Electoral College to decide the winner, there have been instances whereby his competitor overcomes an aspirant with a higher percentage of the popular vote via the electoral tally (Colomer, 5). It has been argued that this defeats the purpose of democracy because in a democratic country citizens have the right to self-governance.

Under the current format of the college electoral, it is observable that nearly all third-party hopefuls are not given much consideration. A majority of the American citizens nonetheless do not fault with going the Electoral College way as they point out that it requires no budget whatsoever. They also argue that if the Electoral College were not in place, aspirants these days in all likelihood would ignore the states that have a low number of electoral votes. A good example is the District of Columbia which has the modicum of three votes (Colomer, 85). It is evident that is required to campaign throughout the country to amass the necessary electoral votes which in turn strengthens the Federal system and is the basis of the United States.

On the other hand, the people who are against the Electoral College process advocate the need for inclusivity as in the Presidential election; individual votes are not recorded. Concerning third-party contestants, the Electoral College process significantly reduces their odds of clinching the top seat. The explanation is that despite a voter rooting for a candidate they think is the best, they will not vote for them as they view it as a squandered vote. For instance, in 1992, Ross Perot who was a member of the Reform Party suffered this ill fortune. Even though he got 12% of the popular vote, he was unable to achieve a single electoral vote which is a clear indication of the impediment that is the Electoral College (Mayer, 30).

The National Popular Vote is a plan that aims to make sure the Presidency is gained by the aspirant who garners the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The legislation would ensure that all votes are equal throughout the country meaning that every vote in every state will be valuable in all presidential elections. Ever since 2006, the charter has been accepted in 12 states with a total of 172 electoral votes and will come into force when approved by states with 98 more electoral votes. The proposed law will assign the whole state's electoral votes to the aspirant who garners the vast majority of votes in individual states (Belenky, 94). Charting through history, 5 of the 45 presidents have been elected without winning the most popular votes throughout the country.

In addition to this, presidential hopefuls will have an opportunity to decide where to focus their campaigns and voters on under the winner-takes-all system. Campaigns and attention to voters tend to focus on where candidates have great support, and adoption of this system will give the option for adjustment in states where they are either way ahead or losing hopelessly. The winner-take-all method of allotting electoral votes is state law but is not inscribed in the U.S constitution (Belenky, 99). The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be enacted into law when states that control the bulk of the electoral votes that is required to determine a President; 270 out of 538.

The Electoral College system and the National Popular Vote have notable strengths and weaknesses. The United States currently uses the Electoral College process to determine the winner of the Presidential Election most recently when Donald Trump got 304 electoral votes compared to Hillary Clinton's 227 electoral votes. Regarding the popular vote, however, the latter got 65.8 million votes, while the former got 62.9 million votes. The Electoral College has some advantages which include protection of the welfare of minority groups as contestants will have a chance to interact with them directly. Moreover, it advances the two-party system which ensures more cohesion in each state and the rest of the nation and eliminates the option of a possible recount across the country which would be hectic. It also offers an opportunity for substantial triumph as although a competitor has a lower proportion of the popular vote; they can still be victorious in the Electoral College (Belenky, 110).

The National Popular Vote has significant benefits which outweigh the Electoral College. For instance, every vote is given the same amount of power, and all other elections in the United States such as mayors, senators, and governors are conducted via the popular vote; hence all election structures will be similar. The popular vote would also address a significant drawback of the Electoral College which is that it taints the aspect of democracy (Belenky, 113). The winner-takes-all system would declare the presidential nominee who garners a majority of the votes all over the country as the winner, and this would be a more accurate description of the majority's decision as compared to the Electoral Process.

Furthermore, the National Popular vote would significantly reduce voter apathy. One of the critical reasons why citizens don't vote is because they get the impression that their vote is not significant. For the Electoral College system, if a state increasingly propends to one party, a person who backs the other party may not participate as they feel like it would be fruitless. Their vote is significant only at the local level but not the national level by virtue of the electoral votes. Abolishment of this system would promote more people to come forth and back their candidate (Belenky, 116). What is more, the National Popular vote would omit the hypothetical situation whereby the President-elect is not endeared by the vast majority since the precept of the Electoral College subverts the popular vote. It would also assist in the reduction of partisanship and eradication of extra votes.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the National Popular vote is superior to the Electoral College as it fosters inclusivity and represents the will of the greater majority. The adoption of these systems will most likely witness an increase in the number of voters as every vote is given the same weight and thus will strengthen the democratic process.

Works Cited

Belenky, Alexander S. "The National Popular Vote Plan: A Brilliant Idea or a Dead-on-Arrival Delusion?." Who Will Be the Next President?. Springer, Cham, 2016. 93-118.

Colomer, Josep, ed. The handbook of electoral system choice. Springer, 2016.Mayer, William G. "Changes in elections and the party system: 1992 in historical perspective." The New American Politics. Routledge, 2018. 19-50.