Democrats: Abolish the Electoral College So We Can Win Every Election

 

Screenshot (Public Domain)

The Electoral College is a unique system that is used in the United States to elect the President and Vice President. It consists of 538 electors, with each state having a certain number of electors based on the total number of representatives and senators that state has in Congress. These electors are chosen by the political parties in each state and are required to cast their votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.

The Electoral College was established by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise between electing the President by Congress or by popular vote. The Founding Fathers believed that this system would help to prevent smaller states from being overlooked in the presidential election process and would also serve as a check against a candidate who may be unfit for office.

The way the Electoral College works is that on Election Day, voters in each state cast their ballots for the candidate of their choice. The candidate who receives the majority of votes in a state wins all of that state's electoral votes. It is worth noting that in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), the winner-takes-all system is used, meaning that the candidate who gets the most votes in the state gets all of its electoral votes.

Once the votes are tallied, the electors meet in their respective state capitals in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President. The candidate who receives a majority of the total electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538) is declared the winner of the presidential election.

One of the criticisms of the Electoral College is that it can result in a candidate winning the presidency without winning the popular vote. This has happened five times in U.S. history, with the most recent example being the 2016 election, where Donald Trump won the Electoral College but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. However, there are several reasons why abolishing the Electoral College may not work as intended. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a way to balance the interests of large and small states. Abolishing it would likely lead to smaller states being overshadowed by larger states in presidential elections, as candidates would focus their campaign efforts solely on winning the popular vote in high-population areas. This could potentially lead to the marginalization of smaller states and their interests in the election process.

Another potential drawback of abolishing the Electoral College is the possibility of increased political polarization. In a popular vote system, candidates may focus their efforts on appealing to their base rather than reaching out to a broader range of voters. This could lead to increased divisiveness and polarization in politics, as candidates may be less inclined to compromise and work towards consensus.

Furthermore, the Electoral College helps to prevent the occurrence of election recounts and disputes. In a popular vote system, a close election could lead to recounts in every state, as well as legal challenges and disputes over the validity of the results. The Electoral College provides a clear and definitive outcome to the election, reducing the likelihood of prolonged legal battles and uncertainty.

Additionally, abolishing the Electoral College could potentially disenfranchise voters in smaller or less populated states. In a popular vote system, candidates may focus their campaign efforts on high-population areas, potentially ignoring the interests and concerns of voters in rural or less populous regions. This could lead to decreased voter turnout and engagement in these areas, as voters may feel that their votes are less important or influential in a popular vote system.  The Electoral College helps to ensure that the winner of the presidency has a mandate to govern. By requiring candidates to win a majority of electoral votes, the Electoral College helps to prevent a candidate from winning the presidency with a slim plurality of the popular vote. This helps to ensure that the president has broad national support and legitimacy in governing the country.

The Electoral College helps to ensure that the winner of the presidency has a mandate to govern. By requiring candidates to win a majority of electoral votes, the Electoral College helps to prevent a candidate from winning the presidency with a slim plurality of the popular vote. This helps to ensure that the president has broad national support and legitimacy in governing the country.

Furthermore, the Electoral College has been a longstanding institution in American politics, and abolishing it would require a significant shift in the way presidential elections are conducted. This could potentially lead to confusion and uncertainty in the election process, as voters and candidates would need to adapt to a new system of electing the president.

Additionally, the Electoral College ensures that candidates must have broad national support in order to win the presidency, rather than just winning a majority in a few densely populated regions. This helps to prevent potential issues such as the tyranny of the majority, where the views and interests of smaller or less populated states are ignored in favor of the majority.

Abolishing the Electoral College would also require a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy and complex process. It would require the approval of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as three-fourths of the states. This would be a difficult and time-consuming process, and it is uncertain whether the necessary support could be garnered to abolish the Electoral College.

Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it helps to prevent large, densely populated states from dominating the election process and ensures that candidates have to campaign in a diverse range of states in order to win. They also believe that it helps to promote stability and continuity in government by forcing candidates to build broad-based coalitions of support.

There have been numerous proposals to reform or abolish the Electoral College over the years, including a national popular vote system where the candidate with the most votes nationwide would win the presidency. However, switching to a popular vote system will lead to the dominance of one political party. Urban areas tend to lean more liberal, while rural areas tend to be more conservative. In a popular vote system, with the majority of the population living in urban areas, it is likely that the Democratic Party would have a significant advantage over the Republican Party. The current two-party system in the United States also plays a role in the potential dominance of one political party in a popular vote system. With the Democratic and Republican parties holding a virtual monopoly on American politics, it is likely that voters would continue to align themselves with one of these two parties. In a popular vote system, this could mean that whichever party has a larger base of support would always come out on top.

Furthermore, the issue of gerrymandering also poses a threat to the idea of a fair popular vote system. With the practice of drawing congressional districts in a way that benefits one party over another, it is likely that the party in power would use this to their advantage in a popular vote system. This could further solidify the dominance of one political party and make it even more difficult for the opposing party to win elections.

Democrats, of course, argue that switching to a popular vote system would ensure that every vote counts equally and that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide would win the presidency. They want this change because they would virtually win every election going forward.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution knew all this and made the right decision to have any future elections be as fair as possible, without the fraud of course.