The Electoral College - End, Mend or Defend?

1385 Words6 Pages
"End, mend or defend". to what extent is the US electoral College defensible in the 21st century? Assess the options for reform. The electoral college has been a by-product of the constitution after it's ratification in 1788, indirectly electing a president and vice president for the citizens of America. However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. The Times once described the system as an 'antidemocratic relic', and there is enough evidence to support their view. Supporters of the electoral college se these elections as 'one-off anomalies', but a closer look at previous election results actually tells a different story. In 1976, a switch of a few thousand votes in Ohio and Hawaii would have returned the presidency to Ford, despite Carter being ahead in the popular vote by 1.7 million. Reality is that the electoral college can produce an undemocratic outcome, even if only rarely. Therefore, the electoral college should be ended because it has the potential to be undemocratic. Secondly, it is also the case that votes do not, constitutionally, have to be allocated to the winner of the vote in that state. Citizens believe, for example, that they are casting a ballot for Obama or Romney in November, but in actual fact they are voting for electors who will meet in December and then vote
Open Document