Globally, the United States of America (USA) is undoubtedly regarded as the most democratic nation. One of the key aspects of democracy is elections because it determines who represents the people’s interests at the helm of the country’s federal and state governments. In developed countries, there are two major methods of electing individuals into leadership positions, especially the Presidents. These are; the Electoral College and the popular vote. The latter means that citizens of a country who qualify as electorates vote in the person of their interests, and the winner ultimately emerges as the President. In contrast, the Electoral College involves using Congress or representatives to elect the President on behalf of the electorates. Fortunately, or unfortunately, both systems are alive and well in the USA. However, the Electoral College system precedes the popular vote system as the supreme method of electing the President. In this study, it is imperative to question the history of such a system, what motivated it, why the Americans adopted both methods, and finally, why the Americans have so much trust in the electrical college to date.
The Electoral College was chosen at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as a balance involving delegates who believed Congress should choose the president and others who wanted a direct countrywide public vote (Griffin, 2012). Instead, electors were chosen by state legislatures. The founders’ strategy for choosing the president and vice president was defined in Article II of the Constitution, which also created the executive arm of the federal government (Griffin, 2012). Each elector casts two votes for president under this system; the candidate with the most votes becomes president, and the candidate with the second-highest votes becomes vice president, which might result in administrations with political opponents serving in those positions. The method was revised in 1804 with the enactment of the 12th Amendment, which mandated that electors vote for the president and vice president separately (Griffin, 2012).
The institution of slavery in the United States was a major factor in the decision to adopt the Electoral College as the voting mechanism for the presidency. The population of the northern states and the population of the southern states were about equal when the Constitutional Convention deal was struck. Yet, nearly a third of the population of the southern states were enslaved individuals who were not allowed to vote. Representatives from the South opposed a direct public vote in the presidential campaign because it would have reduced the number of electoral votes available to their states. The discussion helped the convention decide to create the Electoral College, which used the three-fifths compromise previously developed for allocating members to the House of Representatives (Levinson & McGinnis, 2007). Although not being allowed to vote, three out of every five slaves were included in a state’s population census.
The most fundamental reason Americans are using the Electoral College system is that it promotes the county’s cohesion because it demands that an elected President be supported by a distributed system of popular support. If this system was not in place, the American President would be elected by populous regions only, or metropolitans that are dominated by specific ethnic groups in the Southern States. The Electoral College system works in that an elected President must have at least 270 electoral votes (Kimberling, 1992). These votes are distributed across regions and states depending on the number of representatives. This has resulted in the cohesion of the Southern and Northern States because Presidents are compelled to galvanize votes across regions to attain the most electoral votes. The system has therefore prevented possible exacerbation of regional differences. Thus, Americans prefer to use the Electoral College for data because of its unifying mechanism that has gone a long way to address historical regional problems. However, conflicting opinions have emerged in cases such as 2016, when Clinton won over 3 million popular votes but lost in the electoral votes to Donald Trump (Yoo, 2018). Proponents believe these counterarguments are logical and necessary, but assert the validity, reliability, and legality of the Electoral College system. They point out that the Electoral College approach is designed to work with a set of reasonable defaults. If a contender wins the popular vote by a large margin, that candidate will almost certainly win sufficient electoral votes to become president. If the popular vote is very close, the candidate who received the largest share of the Electoral College votes will be declared the winner (Putnam, 2015). So, the successful candidate must demonstrate having both the requisite popular backing to govern and the proper distribution of that popularity. This makes the Electoral College approach so appropriate for all Americans because it tends to solve the geographical problems that existed in and around the United States.
The other significant reason why Americans are using the Electoral College today is that it promotes the rights and privileges of minority groups. With this approach, it means that the final results of the presidential election may be determined based on the candidate’s ability to garner all or none of the electoral votes from regions dominated by minority groups. This makes them feel important and major beneficiaries of the American democracy because initially, minors like women were not allowed to vote, blacks were restricted at some time, and other interest groups like labor unions and environmentalists previously felt like less of their voices count on the results due to the supremacy of the popular vote system (Putnam, 2015). Therefore, in States like California which are majorly dominated by minor ethnic groups, the people must be persuaded by the candidates who wish to become the President due to the large number of electoral votes (55) it controls (Putnam, 2015). Due to this leverage effect, most presidencies give minority groups the platforms of representation and equal regard as other groups, unlike what happens with Congress as an institution. if Americans were still using the popular vote initiative, presidencies would concentrate their efforts on the national popular majority, because the votes from the minority groups may not challenge the ultimate results.
Furthermore, Americans use the Electoral College culture of voting in presidencies as a measure of contributing to the country’s political stability and enhancing the two-party system. Proponents and experts suggest that due to the difficulty for new parties to win the majority of popular votes across regions and States, the balance has been struck and will continue to exist as long as the system is untampered (Kimberling, 1992). The Electoral College has the practical effect of essentially forcing third-party movements into one of the two major political parties, in addition to protecting the presidency from passionate but fleeting third-party movements. On the other hand, the main parties have every reason to absorb small party movements as part of their ongoing pursuit of popular majorities in the United States (Levinson & McGinnis, 2007). Third-party movements are forced to moderate their more extreme viewpoints throughout this integration phase if they want to achieve any of their more moderate goals. Instead of hundreds of smaller political parties catering to different and occasionally radical ideas, we have two big, pragmatic political parties that gravitate to the center of popular opinion.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that regardless of the conflicting views that opponents might have against the Electoral College system, this approach has helped stabilize American democracy and Americans’ constitutional rights. Americans use this system for various reasons that appear to have eliminated or prevent serious injustices, and malpractices both locally and internationally. One of the reasons as explained in this essay is the system’s ability to promote cohesion in the country and fix the geographical problems that affected America and its citizens. Secondly, in this essay, it is noted that the Electoral College system has significantly enhanced the interests of minority groups. If the country was using the alternative form (popular vote system) to elect presidencies, most of the candidates would only strategize in areas dominated by the national majority groups with the sole agenda of galvanizing their votes to beat the opponents. Finally, it is imperatively clear from this discussion that Americans have secured a stabilized political party system and encouraged the two-part state for so long because of the Electoral College approach. All these reasons justify why Americans do the Electoral College for the presidential content.
References
Griffin, K. G. (2012). Reassessing advantages in the Electoral College: framers’ intentions and minority influence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/griffin_kathryn_g_201205_ma.pdf
Kimberling, W. C. (1992). The electoral college (Vol. 1). National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, Federal Election Commission. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ojEVx7FlJ3UC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Kimberling,+William+C.+(1992).+Essays+in+Elections+The+Electoral+College.+Washington:+National+Clearinghouse+on+Election+Administration,+Federal+Election+Commission.&ots=cV6QQ3bCW7&sig=G0ignbYJ2EzkLywuSKnDmshrf8o
Levinson, S., & McGinnis, J. (2007). Should We Dispense with the Electoral College? U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra, 156, 10. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/pennumbra156§ion=3
Putnam, J. T. (2015). A simple approach to projecting the electoral college. International Journal of Forecasting, 31(3), 910-915. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207015000059
Yoo, J. (2018). A Defense of the Electoral College in the Age of Trump. Pepp. L. Rev., 46, 833. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/pepplr46§ion=28
write