The Electoral College:

Flaws and Benefits

Essay
[Writer]
[Institute]
[Date]
 Page | 2

The Electoral College: Flaws and Benefits

Introduction

The U.S. Electoral College was created by constitution framers and is a voting body of electors
that selects the American President. Although America makes the boast that as a nation, it leads
in the movement of democracy in the Western world, there are blatant irregularities in the
democratic process that contradict it claims. Democracy is defined by Lincoln as the rule “of the
people, by the people and for the people” (Peatman 143). Regardless of these contradictions,
there are the pros and cons of the American Electoral College, which are presented in the
following body.

Investigating the Electoral College and appointing of electors are critical in considering the
fairness of American democracy. The Electoral College is based on the electors promised to
favor either the presidential candidate of Republican or Democratic. Every four years, each
political party sends up a nominee who runs for candidacy in the Electoral College. This action
follows the order of the 12th Amendment outlining that the state guides in the appointment of its
electors. Also, it is stated by Article II of the U.S. Constitution that the electors’ number is
“equal to the whole number of senators and representatives” (Nieto, and Schmitt 209). The
number of state representatives and senators granted to each state (two) is represented by this
figure. The goal of the founding fathers is to take away the right of directly choosing the
president from American people seeing that election of the U.S. President is a serious and
important act. As a matter of fact, knowing that the average Joe would not understand certain
interests and subjects, they put the responsibility of choosing the president on the shoulders of
the most respected and scholarly men. The Electoral College can be therefore seen as exclusive
and even undemocratic.

Firstly, the State chooses electors, and thus, attention of the State would be paid more to the
government instead of the countrymen, which ultimately excludes the common man’s
participation from having a say in who has to take part in the Presidential elections. Therefore,
this lack of participation and access makes the democratic process doubtful. According to
Edwards, there is full and absolute plenary power possessed by the state legislators over
appointing electors and could even reject to support the appointment if they so chose. This
 Page | 3

position only reflects the requirements of the U.S. Constitution laid down by early lawmakers
viewing that the people would not be competent to have a say in rule and cancels out any illusion
of personal rights to vote for electors.

The principles of democratic system must guide leadership, on the basis of equality, fairness and
freedom, for balanced distribution of power and fair and equal treatment of all classes and races.
However, within the Electoral College, the interests of the minorities are not respected or
represented; instead it is the protected interests of a few. Democracy, derived from the word
demos, means the people and has at its core the ideal of promoting the welfare of the people. As
a result of democracy, the leader is bound to adopt an attitude of tolerance in the face of
diversity. The more diverse the organization, the more tolerant the leader to forge unity despite
differences. It is only in underlining the common bonds which draw people together can a leader
successfully govern and provide good leadership. Also, diversity brings along individual
considerations. Although directed by the will of the majority, democracy still entitles minorities
or those not belonging to the greater part to enjoy their rights as human beings: their human
rights. As such, the leader's power is restrained by the consent of the members and decision-
making can never be solely unilateral. Democratic leadership has a telling influence on liberty
and equality since it is the duty of leader to protect the members' rights and liberties. Just by its
structure and closed process, the Electoral College does not respect minorities or any other that
comes up against their own.

The Electoral College because of its set-up does not allow individual freedom as democracy
often claims to offer. John Stuart Mill (cited in Macintyre, and Williams) discerns that in order
for just process, the individual will cannot and should not be denied to the people. Man is not
justified when he silences another, even for an alleged public good. This opinion turns the
system of American democracy over its heels. Democracy should guarantee that everyone has
the right both at an individual and collective level to decide. Because many people know that the
right of an individual is useless in an election a large number chooses to not cast their ballots.
This idea decreases in a marked way the voter turnout.

The Electoral College is an essential political body is under oath to defend and protect the
interests of the American people, but its organization ensures that it does not. In contrast, an
oligarchy only represents the interests of a few. It is a threat to good leadership so that a select
 Page | 4

few belonging to an inner circle are eligible to govern the masses. This model goes against
democracy. The lack of representation for minority interests only causes inequalities to continue
among lawmakers and in the nation as a whole. Social relations and control in the utilization
opportunities and occupation in the public space are controlled by a dominant majority who
voice in Congress. Through the Electoral College, America imposes a lawful system allowing
prejudices to bloom while refusing other sectors of society the representation that is due. The
electoral body has its own interests that are at the forefront in the nation’s agenda (Edwards). At
the national level, the “us and them” (Heith 58) struggle leads to the restraint of one group and
the superiority of another.

The Electoral College may be called elitist as well, preferring a small circle of ‘better
individuals’ to vote in the race for the presidency. Once there is organized society, there
inevitably will be classification of groups with separation into the haves and the have-nots. In a
political scenario, the Electoral College still offers preference to a small batch of elites since the
birth of the Electoral College is driven by the idea that the most well-informed people to select
the president based exclusively on merit (Utter, and Strickland). This type of political process
emphasizes differences between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ and produces the elitism that gives more favor
to one group over the next. This system results in the political exclusivity of elections. The upper
crust that customarily enjoys privileges is then electors since they have more access to higher
education, more property, more entitlements and thus more political power. On the other hand,
the lower society that is not eligible to directly vote for the president would be deprived of this
opportunity. As is evidently seen, the principle of one person, one vote’ does not apply to the
Electoral College.

The Electoral College does not have the uniformity that should mark the progress of democracy.
The methods of choosing electors vary from one state to another (Webb 256). Again one is
seeing the State legislatures’ upper hand in deciding over elections for the electors and the
president. The variations in the processes of selecting electors for the Electoral College can
endanger the equality and the uniformity that should be a part of the general elections. This
uneven and lopsided handling in the Electoral College again causes questions to enter one’s mind
concerning the democratic process and the real rights of the people. However in these
 Page | 5

considerations there are a few positives making the Electoral College a benefit politically
speaking to American society.

The democratic rule of the majority can be dangerous; therefore, the Electoral College does a
good by rejecting the popular vote (Edwards). Consequently, the electing process is not based on
gaining the votes’ majority. Mill (cited in Macintyre and Williams) describes the social and
political effects of the tyranny of the majority with his main concern in the power of the general
will to stifle those who disagree. The general will is defined as the people’s voice or the masses’
wisdom (Dr. Choby 21). Hence, majority rule is oppressive since it has the potential to ignore
conveniently and bully minority opponents who go against the grain. The general election is
actually glaring evidence of the rule of the majority in which the people elect a government
based on a popular count. Mill (cited in Macintyre and Williams) also criticizes the majority’s
ability to suppress an individual’s say and to subtract individual liberty, and he notes that
government obtains its power only because of the public opinion of certain voting individuals.
However, the public opinion should not be the standard used to govern a people. Inevitably, the
great force of the majority goes against true democracy because the majority influences ideas and
conscience according to a popularity competition.

Stance of the Electoral College against majority rule (the popular vote) is significant since it
eliminates to a certain extent the trickery of some politicians, and there is clear opposition of the
Electoral College to mass politics. This point of view does not give validity to mass politics so
that the main objective is not to obtain a consenting majority sides with the politician through
mass rallies and propaganda. In mass politics, the individual is swallowed up in the giant process
of the majority and this can override a particular decision. Acceptance of the rule of the majority,
facilitates a gain in consensus, and ultimately leads to uniformity that can upset the democratic
process.

At the same time, if general elections are carried about in the way the public sees fit, presidents
then would become people who take advantage of the passions and prejudices of the people
rather than follow the guidance of wise and educated people who are not influenced by
favoritism. Here one sees the conflict between reason and passion. The Electoral College in
effect closes any door of opportunity to unreasoning partiality that the masses would definitely
have toward their presidential candidate of choice. As a matter of fact, those who created the
 Page | 6

constitution and the system of the Electoral College were strong supporters of reason. It was
during the age of enlightenment that American democracy emerged.

There are some notable cases where the Electoral College overturns the general will as expressed
in the popular vote. For example, in the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson had some claim to
having won a plurality of the popular vote, but the Electoral College ultimately chose John
Quincy Adams (Webb 374). In this case, the Electoral College sided against the popular vote.
Another case confirms the precedent. In the 1960 U.S Presidential Elections between John F.
Kenney and Nixon, Kennedy was obviously the winner of Electoral College but popular vote
was won by Nixon (Edwards). These two examples reveal that the general election is not general
in reality.

Conclusion

There are both flaws and benefits of the Electoral College due to its structural framework and the
processes guiding it. Historically, the Electoral College has favored one certain class in the
society while putting down another. It goes against the very rule of democracy by ignoring the
masses. On the other hand, these apparent disadvantages can work for the advantage for the
American people, since more qualified people are elected to choose the U.S President and
prevent majority politics from taking control.
 Page | 7

Works Cited
Dr. Choby, Bill. Liberty In America, Past, Present And Future: A Prescription For America.
Author House, 2010.

Edwards, George C. Why The Electoral College Is Bad For America. Yale Univ, 2011.

Heith, Diane J. Polling To Govern: Public Opinion And Presidential Leadership. Stanford Law
And Politics, 2004.

Macintyre, Clement, and John Williams. Peace, Order, And Good Government: State
Constitutional And Parliamentary Reform. Wakefield Press In Association With The
Australian Association Of Constitutional Law, 2003.

Nieto, Amber, and John F Schmitt. A Student's Guide To Mass Communication Law. Rowman &
Littlefield, 2005.

Peatman, Jared. The Long Shadow Of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. SIU Press, 2013.

Utter, Glenn H, and Ruth Ann Strickland. Campaign And Election Reform: A Reference
Handbook (Contemporary World Issues). ABC-CLIO Interactive, 2008.

Webb, Daniel. His Accidency: The Race For The White House.....After The Election. Iuniverse,
2008.