If you want to get some great thoughts on why we need to retain the Electoral College then you need to read a previous article the Lexington Libertarian wrote HERE.
Beyond that there are two major reasons that a winner take all in each state is such an important part of the Electoral College. That is a system whereby the popular vote winner in each state gets all the Electoral votes and everybody else gets nothing.
- It discourages a multi-party election. How different our election process would be if we had 9 political parties all in the Presidential race. And even worse if each Party got about the same vote – 11%. The winner take all tends to eliminate a lot of other Parties and those 3rd parties that still linger never are serious enough to get any Electoral votes. So the Electoral College is biased for a Two Party System.
- This correlates with point number one. The Electoral College forces us to compromise BEFORE the general election. We saw that in the Republican Primary where there were 17 candidates that eventually became one. In the European Parliamentary model, there are many parties that run in the general election but then the highest vote getter who never has a majority must form a coalition government afterward. This is a compromise after the election instead of before. Coalition governments are shaky and rarely stand the test of time.
Liberal Hypocrisy On the Electoral College Brutally Exposed
Seth Connell reports that as the whining over the results of the Presidential election continues, one Democratic Senator is taking it to a whole new level and is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Since Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, the Left is bringing up old arguments that the Electoral College is undemocratic and only a national popular vote is suitable for Presidential elections.
As long as the result is a Democratic President, of course…
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation on Tuesday to get rid of the Electoral College, after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election despite leading in the popular vote.
“In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote,” Boxer said in a statement. “In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. I couldn’t agree more. One person, one vote!”
She added that Clinton, whom she supported, is “on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama.”
“The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately,” she said.
The glaring problem here is not that the system is rigged to help racist candidates oppress minorities (yes, some outlets claim that). The problem is that Barbara Boxer, and many on the Left, fundamentally misunderstand the importance of the Electoral College.
This system is in place to thwart the rise of demagogues, secure separation of powers, and enable smaller states to have a say in the electoral process. And, for the most part, it has worked fairly well.
First, the issue with a national popular vote is that demagogues, those who ride waves of passion that override better judgment, often can rise up and take sweeping powers with a popular mandate. However, that is how liberty dies (and often with a thunderous applause, I might add).
The Electoral College exists to protect people from themselves, and to prevent demagogues from playing off the fickle passions of the people. Socialists and Fascists are experts in demagoguery, and will use any and all means available to them to exploit tragedy to advance a totalitarian political agenda.
The Electoral College acts as a barrier by turning what would be one national election into 51 separate elections. It is much harder to win that kind of election as a demagogue than it is to win just one election nationally.
Second, the Electoral College acts as a separation of power. If the Presidential election were merely done by national popular vote, the states would have effectively no say in the electoral process. The system as designed enables state participation in the process of electing a national official.
The states are a critical part of the federal system. In electing the Executive, they must not be left out of the process (and we already killed their representation in the Senate, so now it is even more important to keep the Electoral College in place).
Third, it ensures that smaller states are not drowned out by larger ones. If the Presidential election were done by national popular vote, smaller states that occupy most of the middle United States would be neglected, totally forgotten in the process.
The Electoral College ensures that the smaller states have a say in the election. Hence, it is democratic to have this electoral system in place.
Another way to look at the Electoral College is to consider it like the World Series. Sure, throughout the entirety of the series one team may score more runs than the other team, but it is the result of each game that determines the winner of the series.
Just because one team outscored the other by 100 runs does not mean that the team with the most runs wins. It is the team that wins the most games. The same principle applies to the Electoral College.
As one last addendum, Business Insider put together a map of population density to show why the Electoral College is a good thing:
Now, if the Electoral College did not exist, what would happen to the grey counties? They would be forgotten, they would not matter. Only the most heavily populated areas would be courted for votes.
The Electoral College, contrary to the inklings of the Left, IS a democratic method of election, and it must be kept that way.
The ‘Fairness’ of the Electoral College
As designed in the Constitution, America’s presidential election is very much a product of the states—channeling the principle of “federalism” that the Founders cherished.
Smaller states receive a slightly higher number of votes compared to their population than more populous ones, which detractors of the Electoral College claim damages the idea of one man, one vote.
Many say this system is “unfair,” and that the total number of individual votes from all the states is a more accurate gauge for who the president should be. But, would it be fair for America’s chief executive to mostly be the product of a few urban centers in California, New York, and Texas?
The Electoral College system was designed to ensure that presidents would have to receive support from a diverse array of people around the country.
Modern candidates have to accommodate farmers in rural states, factory workers in industrial states, and software engineers in tech-dominated states. The president must consider the needs and opinions of people across the country instead of just the views of a few, highly populated urban centers.
The Electoral College ensures that the interests of “flyover country” in middle America cannot be ignored.
This was dramatically demonstrated in 2016. Trump drew the support of a huge number of states across the South and Midwest, while Clinton racked up massive majorities in the most populous states like New York and California.
Without an Electoral College, candidates would have little incentive to appeal to people outside the most urbanized, coastal states. Clinton was defeated because she couldn’t win over a majority of voters in the once Democrat-dominated Rust Belt that broke for Obama in the previous two elections.
The state results in the 2016 election also debunk the second major argument for abolishing the Electoral College: that candidates would only spend time campaigning in a few essential swing states.
Trump succeeded in defeating Clinton because he was able to pluck off a number of states—like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—that had voted solidly Democrat for over a decade. This sudden shift is why Trump secured a surprise victory.
As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross noted in a PragerU video, a state dominated by one party shifting to another is not a new phenomenon. California was a Republican stronghold until the late 1980s, and Texas used to be controlled entirely by Democrats.
Major electoral shifts have happened throughout American history, and will continue to do so as regions and political parties change. Demolishing the Electoral College should not be based on the outcome in a particular election.