The series of heated debates that cover television screens across the nation is a fairly new tradition of the election process. The electoral college, however, is nothing new. In fact, it dates back to the very beginning of the nation’s history.
When the American government was born, most of its creators feared the rule of the masses. Even on the momentous occasion of replacing the unsuccessful Articles of Confederation with our modern Constitution, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were hesitant to grant excessive power to the people; they would not confer the great responsibility of selecting a man to lead the government on the public. They therefore decided that the president was to be elected indirectly by the Electoral College.
The Electoral College consists of a total of 538 representatives, known as electors. The number of electors that each state receives is equal to the total number of representatives that it has in Congress. Therefore, a state’s voting power is commensurate with population. A candidate must receive votes from at least 270 electors in order to become President.
Although firmly grounded in history and tradition, the Electoral College is often the subject of much controversy. Throughout the history of our presidential elections, a total of four candidates have won the popular vote, but still ended up losing the election. The most recent example was the dubious election in 2000, when George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore.
Though this archaic system has been around for quite some time, many Americans feel that it should be abandoned. If the voice of the majority doesn’t always prevail, are the people’s views truly being represented? Junior Mike Novet feels that the Electoral College is simply “a bizarre and ineffective system that distorts results for no actual benefit.”
Others, such as senior Corinne Lizzio, feel that the Electoral College impedes upon the democratic process by inducing voter apathy. “The problem is that not everyone who can vote does because they think it doesn’t matter.” “[This sense of indifference] gets in the way of what the majority of [the] people want,” she said. “When just over half the people in this country vote, it would be crazy to think that the views of the people are being represented.”
Another disheartening aspect of the Electoral College is the fact that, though state populations are not homogeneous with regard to political thought, electoral votes from each state are not split between the candidates. Many states have a history of consistently supporting one party over the other, and those whose political beliefs align with the minority may feel that voting is just a waste of time.
Former MHS student Nick Klingler points out that because of the engrained political tendencies of certain states, the election tends only to “rely on a few swing states.” It is surprising that other states don’t follow suit with Maine and Nebraska, which divide their electoral votes between the candidates based upon results in specific election districts. It seems this would be the best compromise between the antiquated system that is currently in place and election by referendum. However, change doesn’t happen overnight, and it is likely that the Electoral College will remain a hallmark of the election process.