The Pros And Cons Of The Electoral College

Should the Electoral College Be Replaced by the Direct Election of the President? A Debate The presidency and election of the presidency is often viewed as the main focus of the American political system. In recent years the election process and Electoral College have come under scrutiny and reconsideration due to how important the election is. In this paper we will examine the two different arguments about whether or not the Electoral College is a democratic and useful system. According to Arrington there’s no rational reason to keep the Electoral College. The College has the ability to reject the choice of the nation. This leaves the option for completely undemocratic election. This ability violates the sole principle that the people should have the choice and power to choose their leader (Arrington, 239).

As long as a candidate gets over 50 % of a popular vote in a state, that candidate wins all of the Electoral College votes for that state (239). This allows for an unpopular candidate to win as long as he plays his cards right, and wins the right states with the most College votes. This causes candidates to focus on just a few states with close races rather than the majority of the U.S. to the detriment of most Americans. The Electoral College encourages third-parties to cause political unrest in an election. It’s highly unlikely for the third-party to win, but if they managed to receive enough votes it would mean that neither of the two major parties wins the majority (241). In 1948, 1960, and 1968 third-parties have been able to receive electoral votes leaving the possibility that they shift and skew the major party candidate’s opinions and decisions. This is too much power for third-parties to just able to disrupt an election