Pros And Cons Of Abolishing The Electoral College

No other nation has so ornamental a manner of determining their leader in this circumstance, as president of the United States. The framers petrified that a presidential plebiscite and—with reminiscences of how the Roman republic deteriorated into an kingdom—dreaded that the people together with a president who controlled the armed forces might imperil liberty and constitutional government. Their distress of mobocracy led them to cast-off popular election of the president (Genovese “Electoral College”). Unlike the electoral process for members of Congress or governors, citizens do not directly elect the president of the United States. Instead, the president is chosen by a group of 538 electors that comprise the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an intermediary body that elects the president. It was established in Article II, Section 1, of the

Perhaps the most common argument supporters of the College make is that it protects the smaller states. Because of the two electors each state receives regardless of population, electors in Wyoming represent fewer people than electors in California. Without the Electoral College, supporters claim, a candidate could run solely in the most heavily populated states and win, while ignoring rural states. This is the main reason why, even though there have been calls to abolish the Electoral College, it is unlikely to happen. The less populated states have too much power in amending the Constitution. Critics of the College respond that candidates already pay less attention to less populated states under the current system by concentrating predominantly on "battleground states," such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. In fact, a candidate could win California by one vote and another candidate could win 100 percent of the vote in the 15 smallest states, and the candidates would only break