There is an ongoing debate regarding the best way to elect the next president of the United States of America. For more than two hundred years, Americans elected presidents through the Electoral College system. Due to the problems the Electoral College system created during the 2000 presidential elections, people are clamoring to abolish or reform the said system. A significant number of American citizens are aggressively campaigning to replace the Electoral College. They propose to elect presidents through the direct-election method.
Democratic governments all over the world elect their president through the popular vote. Although direct-election is less complicated, there are three major reasons why Americans should retain the Electoral College system. America should retain the Electoral College system because of the following reasons: 1) it compels a winning presidential candidate to build a national coalition from many states; 2) it amplifies and exaggerates the margin of victory, producing decisive results; and 3) it gives smaller states protection against domination by the more populous states.
The U.S. is composed of several states. There are a number of states that have massive populations. In a direct election system, the presidential candidate that garnered the most votes wins the race. Logic dictates that under this new system, presidential candidates should focus their attention on areas that guarantee the most number of votes. The Electoral College system prevents this from happening. The end goal is not to amass the most number of votes, but to win the most number of electoral votes. Thus, presidential candidates are compelled to work with different leaders across the country.
They are forced to create national coalitions, and if they get elected, it becomes the foundation for governing the country (The CQ Researcher 970). Judith Best, professor at the State University of New York, made a compelling argument when she said, “Elections, especially presidential elections, are designed not just to voice opinions” (The CQ Researcher 980). One of the major purposes of presidential elections is to select a leader that knows how to persuade people to work together.
Another important consideration is the influence of populous states like California and Texas in crafting national policies. Under a direct-election system, representatives and lobbyists from these states force incumbent leaders to accede to their demands. They possess this power because they can deliver the winning votes in the upcoming elections. The framers of the U.S. Constitution saw the imbalance of power in the event of mass migrations to a particular state or region.
This means that at any given point in time, there are territories that have fewer people. However, due to the principles inherent in the Electoral College system, presidential candidates are prevented from neglecting smaller states. The current system prevents the crafting of political deals from favoring more populous states. Without the safeguards that are embedded in the Electoral College System, there are no incentives to create policies helping smaller states.
Another important issue to consider is the need for decisive victories. Americans have taken for granted the relative speed of declaring the winner of presidential elections. Critics of the Electoral College system must find time to study how elections are conducted in other parts of the world. If they examine the aftermath of elections in countries like Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, they will discover a selection process that takes weeks or even months to resolve.
Walter Berns, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out the impact of the current system when he said, “By amplifying the popular vote margin of victory, the Electoral College also gives us a clear and immediately known winner with a legitimate claim for the presidency” (The CQ Researcher 981). The key phrase here is the need for a legitimate claim for the presidency. In an Electoral College system, disputes are uncommon because of the winner-take-all principle.
Conclusion
There is no compelling reason to abolish the Electoral College System, in order to replace it with the direct-election method of selecting the next president of the United States. The Electoral College System enables Americans to understand that there are other things to consider in electing presidents. First, there is a need to elect a leader that knows how to govern a nation. This is demonstrated by the creation of an effective national coalition during the course of the campaign period. Second, there is a need to compel national leaders to look into the problems faced by smaller states.
Third, there is a need to determine a clear winner in the shortest time possible. The direct-election method does not encourage the creation of national coalitions because presidential candidates will focus only on areas that have the most number of registered voters. Thus, populous states like California and Texas will dominate states that do not have enough voters to influence the outcome of a national election. Finally, the direct-election type of selecting leaders is prone to disputes and recounts. The United States cannot afford a presidential race that is unable to produce a decisive winner.
Works Cited
The CQ Researcher. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: Congressinal Quarterly Inc., 2000. Print.