Controversial Topics: The Electoral College

Let's discuss controversial issues! In this blog, I will be discussing the benefits and downsides of abolishing the electoral college. I have spent my old time researching into this topic, so some things I say might not be what everyone else says.

Benefits of Abolishing The Electoral College

1- The electoral college violates the democratic principle of equality in voting and therefore abolishing it would restore our democratic principles. 
One of the rules of law is that people have the freedom to vote. Under the electoral college, all votes do not count equally. Voters in some states have more say in selecting the president than voters in other states. Where’s the equality in that?
According to slates.com, states Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota have nearly four times as much voting power New York, Florida and California do. New York, despite usually having some much influence has the second to lowest voting power. That means one voter in Vermont has the same power as four New York citizen put together. Furthermore, the number of people per electoral vote is disproportionate in each state. For example, Minnesota has 22 thousand more people than Colorado, but it also makes the cut to get one more vote. However, Wisconsin has 33 thousand more people than Minnesota but has the same number of votes.
The very core of your voting system is trying to let everyone have it all equal in life. But if we can’t even let people have the same power to elect their future leader, then that's not fair. Judge, how can we not abolish electoral college if millions, billions even, people are getting slighted?

2- The electoral college violates the principle that the winner should be the one that received the most votes.
This occurs because all but two states award all their electoral votes to the candidate winning a plurality in the state.
According to fatcheck.org in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 the president with the most votes lost the election.
It is crucial that our citizens get to vote and choose the president THEY want. Not just a group of people where one vote can change the majority of the percentage.

3- The electoral college has a winner-takes-all method of distributing the votes.

It is unfair to have candidates in elections just by having the most democratic or republican states. This unbalanced the system.
According to fairvote.org, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that clearly favors one candidate. For example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states.
If there are more democratic states than Republican, that President is more likely to win.
Winning an election just because more states favor you is unfair. Many individual votes that would have otherwise counted do not matter, and it also leads mainly democratic or primarily Republican states to get skipped over by candidates.

4- The electoral college lets electors vote however they want.  
In only 29 states, electors are law bound to vote whatever the state majority was. In four cases, presidents won without the popular vote- because of voters.
In 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 the president with the most votes lost the election, states factcheck.org. Furthermore, according to fairvote.org, in twenty-one states, the electors aren’t bound by any law or requirement to vote the same way their state majority did. The state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. In Vermont and Wyoming, the states with the most voting power, the electors are legally bound to vote the same way their state did. This extremely disbalances the election.
If electors aren’t legally bound to vote the same way their state went, then unfavored presidents can win the election.
This isn’t fair. Voters should have the power to vote for whichever president they want, not just hope that their elector will decide to do the right thing.

5- Even after a long and complicated elections system to make the individual’s citizen’s vote matter, the House of Representatives can end up choosing the candidate.
If the individual voter’s choice is so important, then why can the House of Representative just want the president? It isn’t fair.
According to fairvote.org, if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives and the vice presidential vote is deferred to the Senate. This means that it can turn into a purely partisan battle instead of finding out which candidate the people most want.
There’s no point in having such a complicated system of electing when the House Representatives can just end up choosing someone else- someone other than the president selected by the people.

Downsides of Abolishing The Electoral College

1- It facilitates a two-party system.
Even though some people aren’t fans of the two party system, it keeps the election organized and stable. It also allows people to be running with a more organized party.
According to Atlantic-Pacific Economic Blog, the two party system (Democratic and Republican party) keeps the election stable. It narrows the field down to only two candidates, which is much more organized and manageable. Furthermore, it allows for more generalized platforms instead of only specific issues, as stated on newsmax.com. Furthermore, it rules out any candidates that the people do not like early in the election.
Without the two party system, then anyone who wants to run could run. The electing would be much more confusing, and the majority would be a lot smaller.

2- It directs more power to the states.
We should allow the everyday, ordinary people in America do the choosing. Electoral College does just that. It gives more power to the states than to people in charge, like the Senate or House of Representatives.
States are given the authority to select the delegates to the Electoral College, allowing them to participate in the selection of a president. It maintains the representative form of government, according to the U.S. Election Atlas. Last, but not least, it discourages from other leaders choosing the president but lets the real ordinary every-day Americans do the choosing.
If leaders want the other leaders, then the president wouldn’t be the one desired by the majority of the people, and there would be unrest. It would also be tough to get into any position of leadership.

3- The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority.
This keeps from candidates from skipping over states with small populations. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests.
According to idebate.org, the electoral college keeps presidential candidates from overlooking small countries just because of their populating. It also forces candidates to pay attention to all state interests, no matter how small. Furthermore, when the electoral college was created, it was to protect the illiterate majority from being manipulated.
Making sure that there is no discrimination or inequality when voting is one of the core aspects of our system. The electoral college does just that. It keeps any small or disadvantaged minorities from being manipulated.

4-The Electoral College keeps high population states and regions from deciding the presidency.
Without the Electoral College, a large popular margin in one state (like California or Texas) could decide the entire election.
According to fairvote.com, states with large populations like New York and California would decide the whole election. With the electoral college, it let's states with a small population have near or equal voting power to states with a large population.
If states with the largest population hold most sway over the election than people living in the states with less than 3 million inhabitants (which nearly has the states) will, vote and in the overall run of things, it won’t matter.

6- Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.
If a president is forced to a battle state by state, it opens their eyes, so to say, to any local or state problems. A president and should be looking to solve problems on more than just a national level.
The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that makes candidates pay attention to local issues, and, do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents.

A presidential candidate is, of course, going to focus on a more national level interest, but to visit and campaign across the country, the applicant must be at least aware of the issues that of particular concern to the local area.
Many local or state problems would and could be solved if only people justed looked into them. When presidents “tour” the country, then it gives them a chance to see the internal struggle of our nation, state by state, and what to do about it.

What is my opinion after all of this?

Although the benefits clearly outweigh the downsides I still feel as though there isn't a much real threat in keeping the electoral college, I mean the four presidents who were elected (5 if you include Trump) did not do any harm. What are your thoughts?
We'll be talking about Trump in the next issue.