How Effective is the Electoral College Really?

The electoral college was created by America's founding fathers and was incorporated in the original design of the U.S. constitution. It has been running "strong" for almost 200 years. However, is the electoral college really an effective way to elect the head of our country?

In my opinion, No. 

While the electoral college has been the standard since, well forever, I see barely any pros out of the current system to elect a leader. In fact I see four striking consequences that result from the electoral college.

1) The value of a single vote becomes smaller.

2) the electoral college suppresses voter turn-out. 

3) The will of which candidate the nation prefers, may not accurately be reflected by the electoral college.
4) What about those "faithless electors?"

http://www.oocities.org/gparish2000/EC_Cartoon37.jpg

With the current system the value of a single vote decreases. The only votes that have value are the votes from the members of the electoral college. Not exactly fair right? The votes that should have value is the votes from the ordinary citizens in America. Not these "electors" who barely make up one percent of the population. Some votes are even essentially thrown out. Many citizens live in states that do not always agree with their political ideology. Examples maybe the democrats in Utah, or the Republicans in California. These specific people's votes will never ever be considered. Most states are on an "all or nothing" plan. Where the president may receive all of none of the electoral votes. So the citizen who voted democratic in the state of Utah, well their vote just got thrown out. After waiting in line for hours upon hours to cast a vote, shouldn't their vote at least be counted in some way? Yes it should be, but because of the electoral college, it is not.

Another con of the electoral college is the evident fact that the electoral college suppresses voter turnout. In the past decade voter turnout has been steadily decreasing. While some may say that it is because Americas are lazy, that is really not the case. After the 2000 election Americans are wising up and seeing that relatively...their vote does not matter. So why vote? The reasons why Americans should vote is evident. The citizen's will should always be presented even if their will is not carried out. However, as long as this method of electing president is in play, voter turnout will continue to decrease.

In the third consequence listed, I mentioned that the will of the nation is not exactly reflected by the electoral college. Take the 2000 election. The election was Al Gore against George Bush. Al Gore received a total of 50,996,582 votes. His opponent, George Bush receive 50,456,062 votes. Obviously Al Gore received more votes than George Bush. However, George Bush was elected in office. That is because Bush received the most electoral votes. That being said, since the majority of the country casted their ballot for Al Gore then it shows that the true candidate that they wished to be their leader was indeed Al Gore. Because of this system, The will of the nation was not given. The skeptical George Bush was put in to office, and our country definitely suffered from this mistake. (But then again, I am probably just being biased).

When an individual votes in a presidential election, they are not actually voting for the president. They are voting for who their elector will vote for. The elector's votes are actually what determines who becomes the president. The interesting fact is that these electors are not really "bound" to vote in alignment with their district. While they typically do vote with their district, they do not absolutely have to. This further limits the say of the citizens. After all, is the government not supposed to work for the good and will of the people? If the people's will is not always being granted, then the government fails to do it's job. Also, everyone is a little biased. It is human nature to be biased and favor a certain side. Personally if I was an elector and my district voted opposite from my viewpoint, I would have a hard time voting for their candidate. I am sure these electors feel the same way.

In my opinion the best way to fix the issue of reflecting citizen's choice in the presidency is by switching from electoral college to popular vote. Essentially, which ever candidate receives the most votes wins office. By switching over to this method of voting it would improve several problems within voting. Voter turnout is likely to increase, as an individual vote becomes more important. Most significantly, the will of the citizens is more likely to be presented in this voting method which is always a plus.

Another way that might be a method of compromise is to make all states switch over to proportional electoral votes. That means that is one district in South Carolina voted democrat, then the democratic candidate will always receive that one electoral vote no matter what. Even if the rest of the districts voted republican. The candidate will still receive that electoral vote from the state of South Carolina. That is a slightly more effective and fair way to elect president, and it still incorporates the electoral college.

Many people may think that it is not worth the effort to try to change how the president is elected. "If it's not broke, why fix it?" In a way, the system is broke. Citizens (the average citizen like me, and most likely you) votes really do not matter. These votes, the votes that should definitely be of value, are not. I think that displays a "broke" system. So it should definitely be fixed!