Running Head: ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM

Electoral College Reform Name Professor Course Date

ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM

Introduction The Electoral College system is the arrangement, which American voters use to elect their President and Vice President. There were several controversies during previous elections because; the Electoral College system determines the winning presidential candidate through analysis of the majority vote, and not the popularity of electoral voters (Hayduck, 2002). The system has been under numerous criticisms and reforms due to the controversies. Although vast progress has been made, an analysis and critical examination of some aspect of the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections accords noteworthy provisions. There have been a number of constitutional proposals, which were introduced to reform the procedures of the presidential elections. Some of them wanted to get rid of the Electoral College system so that the president would be determined through direct popular selection; however, other proposals sought to restore the system after correcting the faults (Bugh, 2010). The direct election would be a substitute of the Electoral College; hence, popular votes would determine the winning candidate. Some of the proposals for the direct election also required the government to set a minimum number of votes, which the candidate should attain to win the election; however, others claimed that it would be necessary to determine through analysis of the majority. The proposals claimed that those who would not attain the minimum number of votes required or get the majority votes, would be obligated to contend in a preceding runoff ballot vote. However, other versions claimed that the Congress should meet and determine the winner in case the minimum was not met. Those who support the direct popular election claim that it would be an easy process; moreover, it would not only be a national process but also a democratic one. According to the

ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM

proponents the process would allow voters to directly select the President and the Vice president. These are the two officials, with the highest ranks, in the executive branch of the United States government. The proponents also proposed that the runner with the most number of popular votes would be selected as the winner. Presidential tickets that do not reach the minimum would go through a runoff to determine the winner; on the other hand, some proponents suggested that the Congress would meet and determine the winner instead of carrying out a runoff election. The proponents also said that all votes would be treated equally in spite of the state in which it was cast (Charles, 2011). The process would also get rid of the complications, which arise when a presidential candidate dies on or after the day of election, and before the results are announced. During such complications, the popular returns would be certified. The process would also eliminate the complex mechanisms of the Electoral College because the direct popular election has easy requirements. There were critics of the direct popular process from those who favored the Electoral College. Those who opted for the Electoral College claimed that the direct popular process was not democratic because the minimum number, which a candidate should attain to win an election, cannot be termed as a majority. The minimum number is forty percent of the vote; therefore, that cannot be termed as a majority since it has not reached half of the number of votes. Others claim that the direct election is not appropriate because the founders of the Congress did not want congress to determine the president in any electoral process. Opponents of the direct election also claim that if the direct process is not incorporated with the Electoral College, it might lead to political division. This may be so because there are several elements that make up the competing parties in the political field; moreover, various regions are involved in the political process. The process may also lead to division because the presidential candidates

ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM

come from various regions; hence, they all want to satisfy the needs of the people they want to satisfy. Opponents also claim that the process would promote post-election problems discouraging progress (Rush & Engstrom, 2001). All parties desire to gain as many votes as possible; consequently, the need to gain numerous votes may lead to disputes among the parties. There are several versions of the Electoral College reform process. Some of the plans seek to get rid of the organization of the presidential elector, but also seeks to keep electoral votes. There are also plans to give electoral votes to the candidates instead of involving electors in the process. The reform process seeks to keep the requirements that determine the winning presidential candidate. Others require that the presidential and the vice presidential candidate should attain joint tickets. However, there are three plans, which are the most popular among all the proposals. The automatic plan seeks to give all the votes to the current winner in every state. The district plan seeks to give a single electoral vote to the winner in every congressional district in every state, while the proportional plan would give the electoral votes in each state after taking into account the ratio to the percentage popular vote (Norrander, 2010). Conclusion The Americans should continue to use the Electoral College system although some amendments should be made to make it effective. The winning presidential candidate should be the person with the majority votes because the popular vote does not consider what the majority want. The congress should not decide the winning presidential candidate to avoid post-election problems.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM

References Bugh, G. (2010). Electoral college reform: Challenges and possibilities. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate. Page 65. Charles, G.-U. E. (2011). Race, reform, and regulation of the electoral process: Recurring puzzles in American democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Page 7-17. Hayduck, R. (2002). Democracy's moment: Reforming the American political system for the 21st Century. Lanham, MD [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield. Neale, H., T. (2009). Electoral College Reform: 111th Congress Proposals and Other Current Developments. Congressional Research Service, 7, 1-27. Retrieved from <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40895.pdf> Norrander, B. (2010). Can Presidential Primaries Be Reformed? New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Page 94-117. Rush, M. E., and Engstrom, R. L. (2001). Fair and effective representation? Debating electoral reform and minority rights. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield. Page 70.