The Electoral College has been considering a nondemocratic way of choosing a president in America. The advocates who are arguing against the Electoral College and who are calling for the amendment of that law are very correct. When Hilary Clinton was elected a Senator promised to push for the change of this law, but she failed to honor her promise which is sure it haunts her today. After what happened between her and Trump, Hillary must be regretting why she did not push for the amendment of that that made her lose the presidential seat. The main issue with this argument is the fact that the Electoral College is not liberal but rather isolates and violets the rule of one vote one man. This paper will be discussing the reason as to why Electoral College should be abolished and direct voting to replace it. It outlines how the system is an enemy to the voters’ democracy as well as how it hinders one vote one man principle.
The Electoral College is a threat to the country democracy since there are nobody votes that is more valuable than the others or rather no one vote that count than that of others. Additionally, the independent judgment is with time being disqualified since the electors are being chosen by the party and whom the voters are not even aware of them. The electors are not independent, and they are having no idea on the national policy as well as the potential leaders. The Electoral College has brought down the ability of a geographically concentrated individual to make their choice of a president for the other parts of the country. More so the existence of faithless electors has for many times recently affected the election outcome. Previously some selectors were not faithful, but their number could not bring about any impact on the election outcome (Kimberling, 1992).
The existence of Electoral College leads the politicians ignoring rural areas where there a fewer people. Most of the candidates would spend most of their time campaigning in big cities. It leads to candidates carrying out their campaign in 12 to 15 states rather than carrying out drive to all the rules. Therefore the Electoral college hinder candidates from carrying out a nationwide campaign which is inclusive of all the individual living in rural as well as urban rather than just concentrating on densely populated areas. If as a nation we could do nothing that only the allocation of the electoral votes based on a population the system would have been more democratic, but that cannot happen without an amendment to the constitution. Some electoral laws need to be amended so that no area would feel unrepresented as well as avoiding the distortion of the governance (Medvic, 2017).
The Electoral College is so unfair since millions of voters in the safe states end up being wasted ad their vote does not count. For instance, in the year 206 if Clinton had got 4 million votes or 40 favorites voted it had no different. In the case, she gets her 55 selectors, but Florida and Ohio votes influence the outcome since they are politically divided. Most of the critics of the Electoral College would stand on the argument that selectors are not enough to determine who the citizens want and who they want to be their president hence the system should get replaced with direct election.
The idea of the National Popular Vote is more focused on taking chances of the states that are allowed to vote for the electors and makes sure that no matter who wins him or she must be from their country. Despite the fact that the national popular votes are constitutional it has for many times raised many individuals’ eyebrows. Mostly it has led to the less favorite candidate to win the election and mostly is as a result of the faithless selectors. If the vote is all about numbers, the Electoral College system is illegitimate since it is only the sectors that have the power to make the choices. The Electoral College for many times to capture the will of the people where the system has led to the election of a president that is not of people choose. More so, it has become too hard for a third party to win the election. With this kind of election system, it discourages the third party to contest or independent candidates, the voters get restricted to a particular choice which is not democratic.
However, there are rewards obviously when reforms are made about the replacing or abolishment of the college reward sand risks. If an individual thinks that majority law is the only legal form of common option, then it cannot make the Electoral College legitimate. According to Edwards argue that despite the selectors’ choices may be misused politically equitable in some ways. If the divergent between the popular votes as well as the Electoral College the cost would decrease (Bugh, 2016). In an alternative method, there need to have more political affiliations which might widen their reach to a more significant number of voters which aligns the two modes of choice. In shorter terms, voters may be angry of the result of a particular national election which is an activism activity at other levels of government. More so, rural votes should as well be counted as that of that of the people in urban areas.
References
Kimberling, W. C. (1992). The electoral college (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, Federal Election Commission.
Medvic, S. K. (2017). Campaigns and elections: players and processes. Routledge.
Bugh, G. (Ed.). (2016). Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge.
