Electoral College Be Abolished Dbq

The Electoral College has been one of the most debated topics in politics ever since its inception. The original idea behind the College was that, back in the 1700s, when communications were slow, voters were uninformed, and votes were counted by hand, the Framers needed a streamlined and efficient system for electing the President. The college worked – and made sense – back then. The question is: does it still apply today? Today, Americans have the technology to vote directly for a President, yet they don’t. The old system of electing electors to the college is still in place – and it should be. The Electoral College should not be abolished because it properly divides power - but still keeps it in the people’s hands, keeps extremists out of

Most would agree that taking an extreme view on topics never is a good idea, as it pleases very few and angers many. This is the core of democracy – compromise. One excellent aspect of the Electoral College is that is it prevents extremists and eccentrics from gaining any traction in the government (Document C). As stated by Arthur Schlesinger: “The multiplication of splinter parties (small parties with ideas outside the mainstream) would make it hard for major-party candidates to win popular-vote majorities.” (Document E). Essentially, Schlesinger is saying that a switch to popular vote would cause more and more parties to start submitting candidates to the presidential election. An example would be the 1992 Presidential Election. The major candidates were Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot. In terms of popular vote, Clinton won with 43%. This means that 57% of Americans voted against Clinton. How does this make sense? Ross Perot, an eccentric billionaire, won nearly 19% of the vote, and added to Bush’s 37.5%, plus other unnamed candidates, makes up 57% of the population who didn’t want Clinton in office. This was with one eccentric billionaire. Imagine if four or five billionaires ran and got 10% of the vote. Someone might win, if it comes down to popular vote, with a range of 20-30% approval. This is why the Electoral College is more democratic than people give it credit – it prevents eccentrics from paying their way to

The Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states, so the country was transferred to a Federalist government, one that consolidates some power in the central government while leaving much of it with the states. The solution of keeping the power with the states was the New Jersey – Virginia compromise. This compromise formed the House and the Senate, which combined have 538 members. This, in turn, helped form the Electoral College. The College automatically apportions three votes to each state. This is where opponents of the College find fault. The prime example is a comparison of Alaska, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North and South Dakota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming to the single state of Illinois. These twelve states and the district account for forty-four electoral votes, and 12,500,000 people live there. Illinois, with a population of 12,830,000, only gets twenty electoral votes (Document D). Here, it seems as if the 12,500,000 people of the District and the twelve states are essentially getting over double the representation than the people of Illinois. And this is one hundred percent true – except it’s not. Imagine this scenario – someone who has lived in the Bay Area has voted liberal since they were eighteen, and is a proponent of