Children's Web magazine...
Entertaining , Educational, Fun,Informative and MORE

It is without any doubt that the Electoral College is an outdated system and laden with faults. There exist a few positives to attenuate the holistic image of the system but these are very small and not sufficient enough to create a sound argument against the abolishment of the Electoral College. However, the question lies in what is to replace this system if its abolishment is to come about.

One of the looming questions over the Electoral College is about the effect it has on small states. Because of the nature of the Electoral College system (i.e. the fact that the president is elected on the amount of Electoral College votes rather than the popular vote) the voice of smaller states is upheld. For example, though Wyoming only has a population of 586,107, the Electoral College system allows it to have a significant, albeit a rather small one, voice in who becomes president in that it has 3 Electoral College votes. This means that should there be a closely contested presidential election, as it was in 2000 for example, the small states have a significant voice in who becomes president. The abolition of the system, it is argued, would then mean that small states such as Wyoming are thus swept aside by the tyranny of the majority. As a result, it is probable that voter apathy would ensue upon the Electoral College’s abolition. Therefore, it is clear that the Electoral College does uphold some degree of positivity in that it lends a voice to the smaller states, and that its abolition would see such the marginalisation of voters of such states.

However, the notion of lending a voice to the smaller states has also been met with a torrent of criticism. This is largely because the Electoral College undemocratically lends too much of a voice to smaller states. As just discussed, the outcome of the president can come down to marginal Electoral College system votes. Thus, from such a perspective, it then appears undemocratic for Wyoming to have 3 Electoral College votes with a population of 586,107 and California to have only 55 when it has a population of 37 million. This means that California one Electoral College vote for every 675,000 people, whereas Wyoming receives on Electoral College vote for every 185,000 people. Ergo, if California and Wyoming were to receive Electoral College votes on the same basis, California would receive 200 rather than 55. This means that some votes have more value in one state than in other states. As a result, it means that candidates can concentrate their policies favourable to certain states, such as abortion in states within the Bible belt, rather than appealing to the entire population. Therefore it is clear to see that whilst the Electoral College system is seen in a positive light in that allows smaller states to have a significant voice in the process of electing the president, this is itself is undemocratic because it places greater weight in more sparsely populated states in comparison to densely populated ones, thus going against the notion of equality. 

Image Credits: parade.com