Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?

965 Words4 Pages
Nkolo Nyada Chapter 12 Paper Should the Electoral College Be Abolished? Richard J. Durbin argues that the Electoral College should be abolished. He believes that a president should be elected through the majority vote. He does not like the idea that if the difference between states votes are 5%, that all the electoral votes should be given to the winner. A “winner take all” sort of thing. It would bother you if you were on the losing side of that, and your vote is technically thrown away. What else is bothersome to Durbin is that the Electoral College distorts the election process, with some votes having more weight than others do. It is like your vote counts as one and your neighbor’s counts as three. It is undemocratic, un-American, and unfair. Durbin says that is exactly what the Electoral College does. He uses this as an example: The state of Wyoming has a population of 480,000 people, and they have three electoral votes. This means that they have about one vote for president per every 160,000 people. Illinois has a population of 12 million people and 22 electoral votes. This means have one vote per every 550,000 voters. This is a very unbalanced form of voting, not capturing the popular vote at all. Durbin also points out that we use a direct popular election system for Senators, Governors, Congressmen, and mayors, but not for our President. The Founding Fathers knew during their time that people running for congress lived closer to the people voting for them, so at that time, the people voted directly for them but only for them. This was because word didn’t travel as fast back then and information was not as accessible. But in 1913, the seventeenth amendment let the people vote for senators. We now directly vote for senators and congressmen, but not our president. Durbin thinks this is an age-old process and should be changed. Some may argue that if the
Open Document