Changing a Broken System
TATUM REGISTER | November 6, 2020 | OPINIONS
In 1787, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that larger states would dominate smaller states in votes for the election, which ultimately contributed to the establishment of the Electoral College. However, in the modern age, the Electoral College has become outdated, and as a result poses a threat to American democracy. It is the antithesis of the basic democratic standard of “one person, one vote,” as the electorate can override the choice of a national majority of voters. Now, voters are more serving as statistics for the Electoral College, rather than directly deciding the president.
According to the Library of Congress, the Framer’s preferred to strictly have wealthy, white, landowners vote, and this decision to bestow only these "enlightened statesmen” with the power to vote for presidential candidates is undemocratic. These electors base their vote entirely on the majority winner of their state while silencing the votes of those who voted for the minority. In a narrowly won state, electors can ignore the will of 49.9 percent of the voters. Furthermore, in trying to give smaller states more representation, the Framers actually made the process less democratic, as not all of the citizens’ votes are directly voting for the president.
The Constitution states that electors are commonly nominated by state party conventions. To qualify, one must have a current membership to the party, hold current voter registration, and in some cases, be required to vote for the party’s ballot in an effort to eliminate faithless electors. A faithless elector is an elector who doesn't vote in favor of the state majority; to avoid them, some states have mandated for electors to vote in accordance with the state popular vote. Opponents argue this justifies the necessity of the Electoral College because the state is still voting for the majority winner. This argument is shaky, as regardless, the votes of the Electoral College still take superiority over the votes directly from the people.
This displays yet another flaw of the Electoral College; if a presidential candidate already has the majority of votes in a state, why not just go by the national majority vote? Therefore, the electoral system is an undemocratic system, as it doesn’t really matter who the people of the state vote for if the electors from that state will override the vote of the minority. The body serves a meaningless purpose in the election process, and if its votes are supposed to be a reflection of the popular votes of the states, then the United States should abolish the Electoral College and use the National Popular Vote.
Opponents argue the Electoral College is not a threat since certain states have set in place laws which hold electors accountable for voting against the state popular vote. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 32 states have laws attempting to bind the votes of the electors to the state popular vote. According to Fair Vote, an organization that advocates for electoral reform, more than half the states in America, including Florida, have such laws. The seven faithless electors in the 2016 election who avoided these binding laws could have been the key to having the Electoral College vote matching the national popular vote. Their decision to not vote with the state reveals the need to replace the Electoral College. Seeing as though no systemic reform has been made so far, the 2020 election will be the latest in a long lasting cycle of undemocratic selection of the president and the silencing of voters with oppositional ballots to the popular vote of their state. The threat of such a disruptive body must be stopped.
The Electoral College ultimately silences the votes of Americans and contradicts its original purpose of maintaining democracy. The National Popular Vote is a far better alternative, and should be the sole process in determining elections. This system is outdated and is no longer compatible with modern interests.