As America begins to stray away from its founding principles, it is more important than ever that we remain rooted in the Constitution and what the founders saw as necessary to our republic, especially the electoral college.
With the presidential primaries just around the corner, every presidential candidate wants to have the newest and boldest claims. Everyone is trying to outdo one another. One of the claims that arose from the demcratic side is about abolishing the electoral college.
Presidential candidates, senators and representatives alike are jumping on this bandwagon. From Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Kamala Harris, people are of the belief that the electoral college is outdated and no longer serves its purpose. I strongly disagree.
For a brief review, let’s cover what the electoral college is. According to the National Archives and Records Administration, “the Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.”
Each party has their own electors, and at least 270 are needed for a candidate to win. The number of electors per state is determined by each state’s population, more specifically it comes from the number of representatives the state has plus two, for their senators.
The Founders intended for this system to be a compromise between direct election and a simple vote in Congress. An article from The Heritage Foundation suggests that “under the Electoral College system … [small state’s] votes still matter because their (at minimum) three electoral votes guarantee at least some representation of their state’s collective will out of the 538 total votes,” whereas in a popular vote, larger states would have all the say.
This is the central and most important argument to keeping the electoral college. If the U.S. moves to a popular vote system, candidates will begin pandering to the most populous states, including California, New York and Texas. The blue collar people of middle America and small states like Vermont and New Jersey can kiss their voices goodbye.
About a month ago, in an Instagram story, Ocasio-Cortez called the Electoral College system a “racist scam.” This added her to the list of Democrats against this Constitutional function.
This leads to another strong point against abolishing the Electoral College. It is written into the Constitution. According to an NPR article, “fully overhauling the way the president is selected would take a Constitutional amendment, which would require the votes of two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the states.” This is a feat extremely unlikely to be achieved in the divided America of today, and is something this nation has rarely ever seen.
While it is unlikely to see a super majority of Congress unite for abolishing the system, it is more likely that we could see them rally for a change. One significant change that may be useful to the college is abandoning the winner-take-all system. If we are going to most accurately represent the people, then why if a candidate receives just 52 percent of the popular vote, do they get 100 percent of the votes of the state?
Maybe America should consider a proportional system where each state still gets a number of electors, however, if they win 54 percent of the popular vote, they get 54 percent of the electoral votes of that state. This might even make way for a third party candidate to come in and rid us of the two-party system we’re stuck in.
Currently, while small states are fairly represented, large states such as California and New York are locked in place as Democratic votes. If we change the winner-take-all system, some of these state’s votes would be up for grabs again.
Furthermore, I do not believe our electors should have the option to vote for whoever they want, they must vote with the will of the people. If not, it gives one person the right to override all of a community. It is an argument to be made that we get rid of electors as a whole and make it simply a computerized system, but for now, I would argue that simply forcing them to vote as the state did should be mandatory.
With all this said, it is important to keep in mind that America was built on the backs of the little guy, the minority that would have otherwise been shunned. The first amendment emulates this same sentiment, federalism in our nation confirms it and the electoral college solidifies it in our votes.
America began because we were able to rebel, as a minority we had a voice against Britain. It would be patently undemocratic, and unamerican, to take away that right. The Constitution wasn’t written as a document only for the day, but to give us guidance in our core beliefs. The electoral college remains integral to that.
Modifications may be necessary as the times change, but to throw away a core ideal of our Constitution, in ensuring everyone, small and large state alike, has a voice, is to abandon the America we know.