Benefits of the Electoral College
The Electoral College of the US has been deciding the fate of the people of the US after every presidential election. However, its mode of operation and its results have been triggering heated debates. Some people feel that it no longer serves the interests of Americans in upholding democracy. On the contrary, others believe that it is still effective in the same parameter and fit for use for longer. The ideological differences expressed by different authors explain the reasons for the mixed feelings. However, that the Electoral College still delivers democracy to Americans is the weightier side. The Electoral College still meaningfully helps American democracy.
The question of the effectiveness of the Electoral College is anchored to various and numerous aspects of the same. One of the major aspects that both proponents and opponents consider is whether the political institution is still as effective as it was in the past. This aspect considers whether there is a need for change. Another aspect is the ability of the Electoral College to offer political equality to all Americans. This aspect considers the need for political processes that consider the rights of all American citizens as the main sources of political power. Whether the president elected through the processes of the Electoral College is effective enough in dispensing duties impartially is also a major perspective. These and other dimensions form the basis for the ongoing heated debate in quest for democracy in the US.
Literature Review
Various authors explain different perspectives in the issue. According to Moynihan, the Electoral College is one of the constituents of a constitution that has proved durable (16809). The constitution of the US has been used for longer than any other in modern history. In equal measure, the Electoral College has been in use for a very long time. Durability means that the Electoral College is hardly subject to any turbulences in the political world. It has been serving the democratic interests of the people of America with effectiveness. It is for this reason that it has managed to remain unperturbed for the long time. The intentions of the founding fathers in formulating the constitution were largely democratic. They sought the creation of systems that upheld the liberty of the American citizens. It is by so doing that the constitution avoided the fate of a stormy history as had been witnessed in other democracies.
A similarly-oriented argument is Ross’ support for the Electoral College. According to Ross (76), the Electoral College is a gateway to ensuring the retention of unique interests by states. He argued that it is through the works of the Electoral College that the free society of America displays its reverence for democracy. The political institution protects the freedom of the states, and gives them complete discretion in the allocation of electoral votes. It is for this reason that all states, including the small ones, have proportionate rights. The Electoral College also ensures that the president who is elected truly represents the interests of all states and protects their freedom. Also, it separates the powers of the state and the federal governments, which eventually protects the freedom of the state governments. It is especially effective in ensuring the freedom of states to pursue their interests in matters that do not require the decision of the federal government.
The Electoral College also receives support from arguments for national republicanism. According to Gregg (193), the political institution was formed to operate in ways that support the democracy of the country. One of the ways was to have a balanced approach that would depict innovation when applying it and would have a prescriptive design. The Electoral College was, for this reason, the approach that best fit the description of such a system. It was created to with a legitimate recognition of revolution. It meant recognizing the people as the ultimate source of power by being republican. It would also be created in such a way that the president would be adequately independent from other entities for him/her to dispense his duties with the energy they deserve. Also, the selection method would be designed in a way that it encouraged having a president who is guided by virtues, is independent, and values republicanism. Better still, the Electoral College upholds the fact that democracy entails majority having their way. It is from the consideration of the majority that the political system achieves popular sovereignty.
Arguments against the Electoral College are almost equally vigorous. According to Edwards (), the Electoral College minimizes political equality. He explained that political equality is among the main support systems of a democracy. Failure to consider the votes of all individuals is, for this reason, a way of minimizing the equality and effectiveness of individuals. It deprives the people of their right to choose their most preferred candidate. Lack of political equality is a precursor to unfair distribution of power. It means that some people have more power than others, which is undemocratic. The Electoral College is one of the systems that supported political inequality during the foundation of the US. The justification for political inequality was that it was appropriate in order to secure the support of all states. In another aspect, the process used by the Electoral College is complex and not well-defined. For this reason, it can easily take away the will of the people without consent.
The Electoral College is also dismissed as an unpopular political institution. According to Keyssar (5), the institution has barely been changed over the years to ensure that it remains undemocratic. One of the ways in which it remains undemocratic is by failing to assure Americans of a government in which power separation is guaranteed. Doing so leads to a higher possibility of intrigue and corruption. Keyssar also argues that the Electoral College deprives some states their rights and favors others (3). Some states have a larger representation than others in the Electoral College. It means that their say in the same is limited.
Evidence-based Argument
The points for and against the Electoral College serving the democracy of the country demand a careful evaluation to make an informed conclusion. One of the aspects that proves the effectiveness in performance of the Electoral College is that it has managed to maintain the US as a democratic country for a long period. As explained by Moynihan, the statute of the Electoral College was formulated in 1884 to avoid a repetition of the mistakes that had been wreaking havoc in other countries (16809). The fact that it has remained unshaken since then is proof that its formulators made the right choice.
This argument contradicts that of Alexander Keyssar. Keyssar posits that there have been attempts to change the Electoral College for its failure to deliver the required level of democracy to the country (5). He explains that there has been perpetual inadequacy in democracy, an issue that demands attention and action in the modern-day America. His argument insinuates that the Electoral College is a crappy institution that was only fit for the olden days of the US, such as the 18th century, but not in the modern-day elections. The fact that the US has barely changed over the years is proof that the Electoral College is still relevant in modern-day democracy, and not a past agenda. It is likely that the federal state of government would fail like others if a different system of choosing the chief executive was used.
The ability of the Electoral College to promote a course that caters for the interests of all states demonstrates the effectiveness of the Electoral College to date. According to Ross, Ronald Reagan, as a candidate, explained that the US thrives in maintaining the freedom of the states due to the involvement of the Electoral College (75). The use of the system assists in maintaining the rights of the states as opposed to them being taken over by the federal government. Evidence of this is in the fact that states retain the right to decide the candidate they prefer most as opposed to being influenced by the politics of the country.
This argument contradicts the argument that the Electoral College takes away the rights of states. Kaysser argues that the political institution grants states unequal power in deciding the chief executive of the country (4). He explains that the smaller states are the losers under the system, since the larger states get more representation. However, the fact that they the votes of the Electoral College are proportionate to the population is evidence that the system considers the will of all people in equal measure. More importantly, the end result of using this system is the freedom of each state to pursue self-interest. Doing otherwise would entangle the interests of individual states into each others’.
Another point of interest is the effectiveness of the winner-take-all basis. According to Edwards () the winner-take-all basis causes discrepancies between the number of votes that each candidate receives and those that they secure from the Electoral College. This idea provokes the idea that the Electoral College awards the presidency to the person who people did not elect. Evidence of this is in the 2016 presidential elections when the votes of the Electoral College contradicted those of the popular vote, thereby exchanging the person who had been elected by the people. It is for this reason that the Electoral College is discarded as ineffective in delivering the required level of democracy.
The precedent is faulty opinion. As opposed to depriving people their democracy, the winner-take-all-basis is perfectly democratic since it allows every state the freedom to change its method of allocating electoral votes (Ross 77). It constitution grants them the leeway to realign the allocation of votes. The various choices that they have in doing so means that they already have received the fairness they would need to ensure their welfare, independent of any other states. In another aspect, the thought that some states cast their votes but they end up wasted is faulty too. It reflects the status quo of every election, where there is a winning and losing candidate, with wasted votes. In 2000, for example, selecting AI Gore for his popular vote win would not have changed the fact that there would be wasted votes for George Bush (Ross 78). It is, for this reason, vague to assume that the Electoral College does not deliver the necessary level of democracy.
The positive motive that guides the actions of the Electoral College is also a point worth consideration. One of the aspects of the Electoral College is that it is founded with the intent to have a president who is independent of other entities (). Adhering to this motive and achieving its demands is a way of seeking democracy. It means that the president who is selected to rule the country at a particular time is not biased in duty or geared towards engaging in certain ways that are influenced by external forces against the will of the people. Democracy entails ruling according to the will of the people, as opposed to making personal rules based on the circumstances. The ability of the Electoral College to deliver this aspect of democracy is, for this reason, worth consideration and commendation. The popular vote system is unlikely to deliver such a high level of democracy.
Conclusion
Arguments for the effectiveness of the Electoral College in delivering democracy show that it is still relevant in contemporary America. The arguments explain that the system has been delivering democracy for a long time, just like the constitution has been doing. Also, the system is designed to select a president who is virtuous, republican, and who is willing to give freedom to all people. The arguments against the Electoral College are, for these reasons, less weighty. Further research can explain the effectiveness of the Electoral College and how it can be tweaked for perfection.
