Matevosyan 1 Erik Matevosyan A.

Lanzafama US History 1 H, Period 7-8 April 2, 2012

James Wilson, a co-author of the Constitution once said, Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?" In this quote James Wilson was referring to the fact that in the Electoral College, the American public vote for a president to be the next Commander in Chief indirectly. In their place, state senators and representatives called electors cast their vote depending on that very states results. In doing so elections can have results that are often exceptionally unsatisfying to the citizens of our union. In order to form a more perfect union, one can now infer that the Electoral College is no longer essential to the United States of America. In general, the Electoral College was designed by the framers of the Constitution in order to select the next president of the United States. There were two other methods suggested; selection by direct popular vote and selection by legislature, however it was not favored over these choices up until the Constitutional Convention. The term Electoral College was not written in the constitution, it came into use in the early 1800s however it was not written into Federal rule until 1845 (Cobane 1). In the Electoral College process, states are given a certain amount of electoral votes. All states receive at least 3 votes; two votes for each of the states senators, and a varying number of additional votes depending on how many representatives that state has in Congress. In total there are 538 total electoral votes; 100 for senators, 435 for

Matevosyan 2 representatives, and three for the District of Columbia. The first step in this process is for the citizens to cast their votes for the candidate of their best interest. This is done on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Then whichever candidate claims the majority in that very state will receive all the electoral votes for that state. The candidate to receive the majority of votes (270) will become the next president. If there happens to be no candidate with a majority the candidates with the most votes will be voted upon in Congress. There is also the case when a candidate wins a states majority, however they do not receive all of the votes to that state. This is due to an elector who has pleaded to vote for the candidate votes for a different nominee. This elector is called a faithless elector. Since 1900 there has been eight total cases of faithless electors in the United States (1). Thomas Jefferson, a former United States president wrote in the Declaration of Independence all men are created equal. If this is so, why arent all mans votes valued equally? It is hypocritical to the Declaration that the electors votes will select the future president. For the better well being of the United States, the United States should move to system of voting in which the candidate with the most votes, will always be the victor, and claim his or her mark in American history. Four times in the nations history did a candidate receive the popular vote and still ended up on the failing end of the election (Lehigh 1). How is this fair to the American public if they are the ones living in the country? It simply is not, in the 1970s president Jimmy Carter proposed the abolishing of the system, and nevertheless it did not receive the two-thirds majority that was necessary in order to pass. It is now more obvious than ever before it needs to be scrapped. During the time of the adoption of the Electoral College, many average residents did not have a decent deal of knowledge about the qualities of a presidential candidate due to a tremendously slower transfer of information throughout the states. This is

Matevosyan 3 believed to be the reason why the Electoral College was assumed, due to fear of the general public electing an unqualified candidate to run the country. On the contrary, it can now be deduced that in modern civilization, voters do possesses enough knowledge in order to select the more suitable candidate. Some may consider the Electoral College not a burden to the United States. However when phased with the question of; if today a new voting system was to be formed would it be like the Electoral College? There is even a so called majority that claim it would not be alike, shown in a Gallup poll that 62 percent of Americans would like to abolish the Electoral College (Berman 1). On August 29, 2004 it was stated in the New York Times "It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisisThe majority does not rule, and every vote is not equal those are reasons enough for scrapping the system." This quote justifies the need to remove the system and finally evade the so-called Electoral College. Moreover, this winner take all system is completely ludicrous. How can it be fair that if one candidate receives just one more vote than another candidate in a certain state they receive every single electoral vote for the whole state? This is called the winner take all system, and this topic in no way can be proved to be acceptable. Today in the United States 48 out of 50 states use the winner take all system. The other two states, Nebraska and Maine judge on popular vote and distribute their votes proportionately to the electors (England 1). Not including those two states, the Electoral College ends up creating these states referred to as swing states, or in other words, states who can dont have a history of voting for the same political parties most elections. These states are where most candidates complete most of their campaigning due to the uncertainty of which political party will win. Thus creating a unequal balance of campaigning in other states, which is unfair toward other states, which are practically ignored. For example,

Matevosyan 4 California has voted Democrat in the last five elections; it is not deemed a swing state. So in this case, a Republican candidate will typically understand to not waste a lot of time or money campaigning in this state due to his or her unlikely chance of winning. Resulting in the ignoring of many citizens right to learn about the candidates will vote for. In addition, this could be a crucial help toward a candidate; especially in the case that California has 55 electoral votes, which are almost guaranteed to the Democrat candidate. Therefore creating an almost corrupt election. The electoral system can be considered completely ineffective. The system could even be referred to as a series of state competitions (Lehigh 1). Joseph Grcic once said "The very existence of the college contradicts democratic principles of equality since it implies that some persons are more qualified than others to elect the president and vice president (Gricic 1)." He makes another strong indisputable remark about this catastrophe called the Electoral College. On the contrary, the removal of the Electoral College can be thought of as unconstitutional. Since the voting system was formed in the constitution abolishing it would be argued un-constitutional. Alexander Hamilton, the first United States Secretary of Treasury said, If the system (Electoral College) is not perfect, it is at least excellent (England 1). Hamilton was a very highly educated, and praised man, he evidently had to have an idea of what he was talking about to make such a remark. It can be argued that the greatest test of political stability is the transfer of powers and that has occurred for over 200 years now in the United States periodically without a standstill for more than three terms. Also, another valid argument in favor of the Electoral College is that the balance of powers is the same in the House and Senate. If ended, it is argued that it could lead to collapse of the senate (England 1). If there are checks and balances in congress than why should they not be included in the electoral process? Furthermore, the scrapping of the current Electoral College would likely cause fraud and process failures (2).

Matevosyan 5 As seen in other presidential elections around the world, a popular vote will often lead to corruption in the system. Chuck Grassley, a current United States Senator of Iowa, in late October 2011 said We want a national president, not a regional president, a president who has to go to rural America (Lynch 1). Grassley said this inferring that if the United States switched over to a popular vote system than candidates would often avoid rural areas of the states and focus their campaign in places with the most population because they will have a huge impact on the election and could potentially almost determine the election. States like Iowa, and Montana will receive almost no attention while candidates might spend a month campaigning in California. Hence, the Electoral College process is absolutely not longer necessary in the United States of America. In order for the United States to be truly united, there must be a union, and in a union it is essential that all men to be seen as equal. For all men to be seen as equal, all of their votes shall be counted equally therefor, creating no need for the Electoral College. In present day America this idea has not been accepted yet however, in the future of America the Electoral College shall be no more.