Political Science

The Electoral College consists of people who come together to vote for presidential candidates. The system is being used in the United States. The citizens are expected to vote for the candidates of their choice who later become the electors to choose the president. The system can be traced back to about two hundred years ago. The main reason for its establishment was the growing concern about the ability of ordinary citizens to make proper decisions while choosing the president. At the time of the formation of the Electoral College there were possibilities of election difficulties due to the existence of thirteen states with greatly varying sizes and population. They were very jealous to safeguard their wellbeing. They were also suspicious of the central government which was national. It had a population of about four million citizens who were widely spread with limited transportation as well as communication infrastructure. This rendered national campaigns very expensive and exhaustive ventures which could never be done adequately to give citizens adequate information (Keyssar, 2003, p.16-18).

Political parties were deemed to be mischievous at the time this idea was more so influenced by political thinkers like John Bolingbroke. They felt that a gentlemen were not expected to campaign in order to get public offices. Instead, it was thought that such offices were supposed to find the suitable people to hold them. The Electoral College was found to be the best means of choosing a president without the need of a political party or national campaigns. The Electoral College is mandated to choose the president as well as the vice president. Currently, they are 538 in number (Keyssar, 2003, p.16-18).

There have been antagonistic views on whether or not the Electoral College should be maintained as a way of appointing the president. Many critics of this system have emerged over time raising a number of questions concerning the suitability of such a system. Personally, I feel that the system ought to be abolished. I cannot deny the fact that it has been helpful in the context of American history, only that the problems we face now as Americans are different from the ones which used to exist during the foundation of the country.  This opinion has been aroused by a number of considerations which I have examined and also after evaluating different views of other critics and also the views of the proponents. This system was established to ensure cohesion in the country since it requires it sets as a prerequisite, that a candidate should have a distribution of support to become the president of the United States. The system was also meant to ensure that minority interests were upheld and not necessarily subordinated by the interests of the majority. It was credited with encouraging a two-party system hence contributing to political stability within the country. It also led to the preservation of federal government system as well as representation (Best, 1975, p.12). While this may be taken for a fact, the problems that were faced at that time are not the ones experienced within our country today. Times have changed and new problems have evolved in the course of time as get over the old ones. The challenges we face today are not similar to those which were faced by Americans 200 years ago.

The critics also argue that many regions have interests which are strongly skewed towards them and often disregard the interests of other regions. They feel that if the popular support has to be distributed for a contestant to become the president, then cohesion is bound to be maintained in the country. This is correct but it is not possible for a presidential candidate who does not command a considerable amount of popular vote distribution to become the president. Which such an instance was more or less possible in the context of a small population, some of the reasons behind its establishment are no longer viable. American population cannot be equated to what it used to be during those times. During such times, there was a possibility that a state with majority population could elect a president on their own based on the popular vote without considering the distribution. Now, it is not possible, popularity vote is able to cater for distribution. This is to mean that a presidential candidate who gunners the highest popularity vote has to more or less have a favorable vote distribution.

They express the opinion that the mechanism is very efficient in ensuring that populous regions do not dominate the other regions in the election of the president. Metropolitan regions which are characteristically large are also moderated against such dominance over the rural areas. And also that, by virtue of the Electoral College, presidential candidates are inclined to choose vice president from other regions rather than their own. This is because no region has an absolute majority, now set at 270, electors to enable them choose the president on their own. Presidential candidates have ensure that there is a balanced state as well as regional representations in their potential governments to ensure that they can get support from most of these regions required to win. In one way or the other, the Electoral College might have influenced cooperation among political leaders. There are many states in America and the president and his vice have coming from different states, does not necessarily mean regional representation. The other states may also want to have a stake in the leadership. If anything looking at the concept from that perspective is bound to lead to animosity rather than unity among states.

There are bound to be inconsistencies as have been witnessed in several occasions whereby  a candidate with more popular votes ends up losing the presidential seat depending on whether or not his support spans across a number of states or is strong in a small number of states. This can be equated to neglecting the views of the majority and favoring an individual with minority votes (Bickel, 1971, p.52-59). This is politically wrong, since politics is all about giving the majority side. Neglecting the views of a greater number of people in favor of a minority interest is bound to lead to animosity. The animosity may grow to an extent that the majority may turn against the minority. The interests of the minority can still be addressed by exploring other avenues and not necessarily pegging them on such a crucial and delicate exercise.

Popular support majority is very important and by far outweighs popular support distribution. The system depresses voter participation hence ensuring that it is only the states or the regions which vote rather than the entire population. Small minorities have the advantage of making a contestant win or loose the electoral votes from a particular state. Ethnic minorities groups have been found to be higher in areas with greater electoral votes they take a very active process in electing the president than would be the case when the entire population was involved in the presidential election process. The majority groups are bound to be disillusioned. There are other relevant bodies that are able to fight for the interests of the majority. While giving the minority groups an equal opportunity to choose the president, it is important to consider the fact that the president is bound to lead the whole country and not necessarily the minority interest. This system ensures that the president caters more for the interests of the minorities at the expense of the majority. Critics feel that if the election of the president could be solely through popular majority votes, the president would only try to address the needs of the majority groups at the expense of the minorities (Best, 1975, p.57-61). The president serves the entire nation and there are checks and balances in his work and also bodies that have the capacity to regulate the decisions made by the president. There is no chance that he would engage in the unethical practice of neglecting the minority.

This system encourages two-party system. The two-party system limits other parties which could best represent the needs of particular people. Third parties are forced to conform to the existing parties and are not able to forward their own interests which may be very genuine in nature. This is more so due to the fact that new or minor parties cannot win sufficient popular votes in several states to have the probability of getting the presidential seat. If they are able to win sufficient electoral votes, to make changes at the House of Representatives, they will be required to command more than one half of State delegation to be able o elect their own presidential candidate. If this is the case, then such a party seizes to be minor. Any third party that may want to crop up is automatically forced to join one of the two parties which are in existence. This may also be due to single-member congress representation of the state. Parties which may be out to fight for their own interest have to moderate their ambitions to ensure that they have some following within a given state. The net result is the maintenance of the two main parties which have views which are generally acceptable by the people as opposed to a number of parties with divergent and extremist views. This leads to the assimilation of smaller political parties by large parties (Pierce  Longley, 1981, p.23).

A direct election by voters is bound to encourage the cropping up of alternative political parties. This ensures that citizens are able to join the parties which they feel can best represent their interests. The senate represents the states on an equal basis with no regards to the population size within such states. This means that there are structures in existence which seek to address the needs of the states. The concept of the state should not be used again in choosing the president (Pierce  Longley, 1981, p.34).

The system is bound to depress voter turnout. They may feel that each of the states has the same number of electoral votes regardless of whether or not they turn out in large numbers. They claim that this may probably leave the delicate election process in the hands of very few people. It can lead to minorities deciding for an entire state. The Electoral College has failed to portray an accurate reflection of the national will. Areas with limited population are accorded the same voting strength as their counterparts with large populations. There have been incidents of faithless electors who do not reflect the will of the people. These are electors who are given the mandate of choosing a particular presidential candidate but end up going against such mandates by electing another contestant (Pierce  Longley, 1981, p.45-68).

The Electoral College is a body that has exercised the mandate of choosing the presidential candidate for a very long time. It was successful in implementing its function. The problems we face now are limited to our context and there is no need of allowing a system that is no longer efficient to us, by virtue of the fact that it had been helpful in the past. It is true that it was established when American population was scattered and conducting campaigns were difficult. We are in a new world that has been graced by the advancement in technology. This is not the time when a single state could be able to elect a president on its own. Times have changed and we should reflect this by adopting systems which serve our interests.