Nathanael Scarlett Tonbridge

School

“Evaluate the view that the electoral college is not fit for purpose and should be abolished (30).”

States would appoint electors who would vote for the president on behalf of the state, and this group
of people are referred to as the electoral college voters (ECV). ECVs are given to each state in
proportion to the number of people that represent them in congress, making them broadly
proportional to the state’s population. For a president to win the electoral college vote, they must win
the majority of the vote, where there is currently 538 ECV, and the candidate must win 270 ECV.
Although the electoral has some issues, it is fit for purpose because the problems with it do not
outweigh its strengths, like the fact that it creates a clear winner, causes candidates to campaign
across all regions, and the fact that it supports federalism.

The first argument opposing the statement that the electoral college is fit for purpose is that it creates
a clear winner with a large mandate. The fact that an electoral college stops the problem with having
a popular vote, where a candidate could receive the highest number of popular votes without gaining
a majority. In 1968, President Nixon received 43% of the electoral vote, clearly not enough to gain a
majority, however one the electoral vote. Without the electoral college, there would be no majority,
and Richard A Posner, a judge on the US court of appeals, explained that ‘there is pressure for a run-
off election when no candidate wins the majority of votes cast, which would greatly complicate the
presidential election process.’ This clearly shows us how vital the electoral college is in reducing the
complexity of the voting system and allowing a clear majority to help create a stronger mandate for
the president. The electoral college vote can also give the president more credibility. Obama received
51.3% of the popular vote in 2012, which may have given him a weak mandate as president;
however, the electoral college further enhanced this because he won 61.7% of the popular vote,
giving him a much stronger mandate for his presidency. However, even though the electoral college
may cause a clear majority, it blurs the balance between the popular vote and the electoral college
vote, where the winner of the popular vote may have lost in the electoral college. This has been seen
in 2 out of 5 of the most recent US elections. One of these times was in the 2016 Clinton vs Trump,
where Clinton won 65,853,514 votes, but Trump only won 62,984,828 votes, but the outcome of the
election was Trump winning 304 electoral votes and therefore winning the election as a whole. This
clearly shows the issues with the electoral college, and it can be argued that this undermines the
modern principles of popular sovereignty and underlines the outdated nature of the institution.
Although this argument against the electoral college is strong, this situation in the last 227 years has
only happened six times, proving how rare this is to happen. Also, the electoral college vote reflects
the popular vote because the ECV vote is in accordance with the popular vote of that state, where 30
states have laws that require their delegates to cast their votes for the candidate who won the state
vote.

Another reason why the electoral college is fit for purpose is that it means the candidate must
campaign across all regions and causes all states to be represented. If the elections depended solely
on the popular vote, the candidates could limit campaigning to heavily populated areas or specific
regions, but the electoral college system requires candidates to get votes from multiple regions,
meaning the winner has to be serving the entire country. Tina Mullaly, the south Dakota
representative, stated that the electoral college protects small states and minority interests and thinks
that “the current electoral college system creates a needed balance between rural and urban interests
and ensures that the winning candidate has support from multiple regions; of the country.” This
proves to us the benefits of the electoral college system as it is seen to cause candidates to focus on
the states as a whole and try and gets the support of as many states as possible, focusing on their
interests as a whole, instead of just focussing on the larger states. However, although states are being
focused on, smaller states are over-represented. Regardless of the state’s population, each state has at
least three ECVs, because it represents how many congress members each state has, and they all

1
 Nathanael Scarlett Tonbridge
School

have at least three. This can cause smaller states to be over-represented and can be seen in the case of
Wyoming and California. California has 55 electoral votes, one for every 677,345 persons in the
state (based on its 2010 population), compared to Wyoming with three electoral votes, which is one
for every 187,875 votes. This is clearly disproportional. California has fewer ECVs than its
population, showing how the smaller states are over-represented by these ECVs, giving them an
unfair advantage, and showing one of the problems to the electoral college. However, this point is
not too strong as it does not make too much of a difference when it comes to the results of the
elections because the ECVs are pretty much just voting in line with the states’ most voted candidate.
This point is also heavily outweighed by the argument of the electoral college causing all states to be
represented because, without this electoral college, groups such as Lowa farmers and Ohio factory
workers would be ignored in favour of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population
densities which would overall leave rural areas and small towns marginalized.

The final point that the electoral college does not need to be abolished and is fit for purpose is that it
aligns and supports federalism. Federalism is a mix of government that combines the general/federal
government with the regional government in the political system, dividing the powers between the
two. Federalism is a crucial feature of the US constitution and was a vital idea of the founding
fathers as it allowed states to exercise a great deal of local control even while the federal government
could have control over more national aspects. The electoral college adopts this aspect of federalism
as it gives both the states and the federal government control of the elections. The states play an
autonomous role in presidential elections where differing electoral procedures are allowed in each
state, but the federal government remains in control when looking into the states as a whole and the
final result. This shows that the electoral college is fit for purpose as it highlights the idea that it
helps enforce federalism in the voting system. However, this federalism in the voting system has
meant that bellwether states are effectively over-represented. These states are the states that swing
between voting either republican or democrat depending on the year. Candidates do not bother
focussing on states that consistently vote for one party or the other because it would be challenging
to sway their opinions. The two main political parties can count on winning the electoral votes in
certain states, such as California for the democratic party and Indiana for the republican party,
without worrying about the actual widespread vote totals. A November episode of PBS News Hour
revealed that “Trump and Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-
called battleground states.” This proves to us how much candidates focus on the swing states and not
the other states because the electoral college causes it to be difficult for the candidate to sway the
opinion of the state. This argument is vital; however, the way to solve this would be to make the
electoral voting system more representative of the popular vote, but one of the problems that would
result in this would be the fact that it would limit the aspect of federalism in the voting system, which
is what not what the founding father’s wanted. Therefore, although there may be some focus on the
swing states, this point is not as crucial as keeping federalism in the electoral college system since
the constitution is based on federalism.

The electoral college may be argued to be not fit for purpose since it causes many issues such as the
president being able to come into the office without a majority and that small states are over-
represented and bellwether states are overrepresented. Although there are flaws in the system, these
flaws are not as bad as one of the considered alternatives to the electoral college, which would be a
proportional vote. This may cause problems such as no one getting a majority or that candidates
would only campaign in the states with a large population. In conclusion, the problems of the
electoral college are outweighed by the significant benefits of creating a clear winner, the fact that it
supports federalism and the fact that the candidate must focus on all the states overall, proving why
the electoral college is fit for purpose and why it should not be abolished.

2
 Nathanael Scarlett Tonbridge
School