THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE 

By: Ian Elder

To some people's surprise it's not the people who vote for the next president, but a group of 538 electors. These people are a part of the electoral college and they all meet up every four years to decide who will be the next president. This system has an assortment of problems. It's not very democratic, nor representative.

The electoral college is somewhat of a complicated system, but in short. Each state gets a certain amount of electoral votes (how many house representative they have plus the 2 senators). then Every four years when a new president is elected the electors from each state will vote for whichever president won the majority in their state. So if a candidate gets 51% of the popular vote in California, they get all 55 electoral votes (even though 49% voted against them). A candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to win the presidents (no matter how many people voted against them). As a result, A presidential candidate wouldn't care whether they got 51% of the vote in California for 100% either way they get the 55 electoral votes they need to win.

With this system the candidates are try to win states not people. This is why candidates spend most of their time in swing states. Only two states (Maine and Nebraska) have a congressional system for disputing electoral votes; where someone can win half of the electors and the other half go to the other candidate depending on who the different districts voted for. With the electoral college it becomes possible for a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. This hasn't happened just once but rather 4 times in american history.  

Four time a president won the presidency despite having the majority of the population vote against them. This has happened in 1824 when john Adams won with 38,000 more votes against him, than in 1876 when Rutherford won with 250,000 more vote against him, again in 1888 when Harrison won but lost the popular by 90,000 votes, and most recently in 2000 when bush won despite losing the popular by 540,000 votes.  A system where someone can win with up to 540,000 people voting against them is not very democratic, nor representative.

Possible worse than a president winning though not winning the majority of the populist, are the 4 million people who can't vote in the first place.  Their are just about 4 million people who live in american territories, but have no say in who their next president will be. These people are american citizens follow american laws, pay federal taxes but have, but they can't vote for people who could dramatically change their lives.  

In conclusion, the electoral college is supposed to represent the people and in some cases it does ok but others it does quite the opposite. A system that lets a candidate win despite losing by 540,000 votes is not a very good system, nor is it very representative when you exclude 4 million people from the equation. The electoral college is a rather outdated system, and if it can’t be exchanged for a better one (direct vote) it should at least be reformed.

Work cited

"Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote." FactCheckorg. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

"U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

"U. S. Electoral College: Presidential Election Laws." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

"U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?" National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2016