Academic Master


Why Electoral College Should Be Abolished

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 Hillary Clinton was elected as a senator, she promised to push for the change of this law, but she failed to honour her promise, which is sure to haunt her today. After what happened between her and Trump, Hillary must be regretting why she did not push for the amendment 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 violates the rule of one vote, one man. This paper will discuss the reason why the Electoral College should be abolished, and direct voting should replace it. It outlines how the system is an enemy to the voters’ democracy as well as how it hinders one vote, one one-man principle.

The Electoral College is a threat to the country’s democracy since there are no votes that are more valuable than the others or rather no one vote that counts than that of others. Additionally, the independent judgment is, with time, disqualified since the electors are being chosen by the party, and the voters are not even aware of them. The electors are not independent, and they have no idea about 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 numbers did not have any impact on the election outcome (Kimberling, 1992).

The existence of the Electoral College leads politicians to ignore rural areas where there are 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 a drive to all the rules. Therefore, the Electoral College hinders candidates from carrying out a nationwide campaign that includes all the individuals living in rural as well as urban areas rather than just concentrating on densely populated areas. If, as a nation, we could do nothing other than allocate electoral votes based on population, the system would have been more democratic, but that could not happen without an amendment to the constitution. Some electoral laws need to be amended so that no area feels unrepresented and that the distortion of the governance is avoided (Medvic, 2017).

The Electoral College is so unfair since millions of voters in the safe states end up being wasted, and their vote does not count. For instance, in the year 206, if Clinton had got 4 million votes or 40 favourites voted, it had no different. In this 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 be 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 making sure that no matter who wins, he 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 favourite candidate winning the election, and mostly, it is 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 has many times captured the will of the people, and the system has led to the election of a president that is not of the people’s choice. More so, it has become too hard for a third party to win the election. This kind of election system discourages the third party from contesting or independent candidates, and the voters get restricted to a particular choice, which is not democratic.

However, there are obvious rewards when reforms are made about the replacement or abolishment of the college reward and risks. If an individual thinks that majority law is the only legal form of common option, then it cannot make the Electoral College legitimate. Edwards argues that the selectors’ choices may be misused politically and equitably in some ways. If there is a divergence between the popular votes as well as the Electoral College, the cost would decrease (Bugh, 2016). In an alternative method, there need to be 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 about the result of a particular national election, which is an activism activity at other levels of government. More so, rural votes should also be counted as those of the people in urban areas.


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.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message