Chapter 12 Discussion

Over the past few years, discussions about the viability of the electoral college have taken center stage. We saw this with the election of George W. Bush and calls to abolish the electoral college became deafening after the 2016 election. What are the benefits and risks of abolishing the electoral college? Do you believe that the Electoral College should be abolished? Why or why not? Respond to at least 2 other students’ posts.

Chapter 12 Learning Objectives:

• Assess the advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College

  Remember to  incorporate the course readings to form a foundation for your responses. Additionally, you must properly cite the course text  (Krutz, 2020, page number). Consult the Discussion Grading Guidelines for additional details. 

Post One’

There are both risks and benefits to the abolition of the electoral college. If it were abolished, one problem is, since it is a popular vote then, candidates would focus on where the population is, namely large states like California, New York, and Texas. The smaller population states would rarely be regarded, as they would hold far less sway over the results of the election (Krutz, 2020, p. 457). It also would remove the shield that our nation has. Should somebody clearly unfit from the office is elected by the population, the electors of the electoral college can be faithless electors, and vote for the non winner of their state. This can be a protection for the government, given that many of these electors have first hand knowledge of politics and government, should somebody that is unfit from being President was somehow elected, they can, with enough support from other electors, put a stop to it and put in candidate that is qualified.

Positives to removal of the electoral college are that when a citizen votes, their vote actually counts towards something. Currently, a Republican voter voting for president in California is essentially a wasted vote. California is unlikely to swap to a red state anytime soon, so any Republican voters, apart from local and congressional elections, have little say in the vote for the president. The same can be said for the other side in places that are mainly red states like the south (Krutz, 2020, p. 457). Also, since these people feel their vote is wasted, turnout can be effected if they live in a “safe” state of the opposite party.

I personally believe in the removal of the electoral college. It had it’s place in the past, but now is just makes voters vote not worth anything often times. Each election I have seen seems to have people discuss a few states that actually matter, and the rest being forgone conclusions. This is not what voting should be. Conservatives in California and liberals in Alabama deserve to have their voices heard, regardless of where they live, and right now, they really aren’t in a presidential election. Our voter turnout is terrible, and I really believe the more people that get involved in the election process, the better off our country will be. The electoral college completely dismisses a large part of the population and gives way for policies that would not be popular nation wide to get root. Would parties have to change their policies a bit to be effectives in a popular vote? More than likely. And would states like Wyoming, with only 578,000+ people have less say in a presidential election? Yes they would. But the fact remains, a person living in Wyoming, should have the exact amount of say that a person in California does in electing the President of the United States, and currently, that isn’t the case. Being least populace state, Wyoming has about 188,000 people per each of their electoral votes. Meanwhile California, the most populace, has about 677,000 per each of their votes. So mathematically, each Wyomingite’s vote has 3.6 times more power than a Californian. That is not right, and firmly believe it should be changed. 

Also response to the following

Post 2

Some of our founding fathers wanted the President chosen by Congress while others wanted the office chosen by the state legislators or electors, and another group wanted the President elected by the citizens. There were several concerns about all of these avenues, but more surrounding the national popular vote (Krutz, 2020, 447.) Concerns were raised that if chosen by Congress or the states, the President would feel indebted to those establishments, and that allows room for corruption or bias in decision making. The concerns over the office being chosen directly by the citizens were greater and made sense, at the time. The first concern was that the people wouldn’t have enough information to vote to make an educated choice and vote for the strongest leader. There was also worry that the citizens would only vote for the person from their region, making it difficult for the President to govern a whole country when only a few supported them. Other concerns were a concern for citizens voting for someone unfit to be the President and that densely populated states would dominate the election (Krutz, 2020, 447.) At the time, southern states would not have had as many votes because slaves could not vote. These concerns, along with others about Congress or states choosing the President are what led to the creation of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was yet another compromise that, at the time, made sense and worked for the size of the country and its population. With the increase in states in the union, the population size, the abolishment of slavery, and the right to vote granted to all citizens, there is no longer a need for electors. Advances in technology have made it so that citizens have access to any information they could possibly need to make a choice and cast a sound vote for the candidate they align with.

The Electoral College is one of the biggest reasons that people don’t think their vote matters. People that don’t understand it and how it works think that the electors just vote for who they want and not based on the popular vote. That notion is reinforced to voters when the popular vote of the country doesn’t match the number of electoral votes. I cannot wrap my head around any reason that a candidate can win the popular vote of the citizens by 3 million votes and not be the one at the end that wins office. That tells me that something is broken and needs to be fixed. The electoral college as it stands gives the states voting power in the election that is disproportionate to their populations, skewing in favor of the smaller states. For example, the state of North Dakota has a population of about 800,000 citizens and has 3 electoral votes compared to California that has a population of almost 40 million and they have 55 electoral votes (. Rounding off here, but that is 3 votes per million citizens in North Dakota and if we are being fair and balanced, California should have 120 electoral votes, not 55. However, there is a cap on how many representatives can serve in Congress, so adding those votes to the larger state would not be an option. The electoral college is outdated and no longer works with the numbers in this country. Without major readjustments to allow for fair and proportional representation, the United States should move to a system of electing the President by the popular vote.

Reference:

Krutz, Glen. (2020.) American Government 2e. https://openstax.org/details/books/american-govern…