POLI 330N Week 4 Assignment: Electoral College – Good or Bad?

POLI 330N Week 4 Assignment: Electoral College – Good or Bad?

Student Name

Chamberlain University

POLI-330: Political Science

Prof. Name

Date

POLI 330N Week 4 Assignment: Electoral College – Good or Bad?

Purpose of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was created to provide balance between populous and less-populous states in the presidential election process. Contrary to the common assumption, the president is not chosen through a direct nationwide popular vote. Instead, each state appoints electors who pledge support to presidential candidates and cast their votes accordingly. Most states apply the “winner-takes-all” principle, where the candidate who wins the majority of votes in that state claims all its electoral votes. The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which distribute electoral votes proportionally, allowing minority votes to carry influence within the state.

This system was intended to safeguard smaller states from being overshadowed by larger states. However, in practice, it has also created disproportionate focus on swing states, raising questions about whether the system fulfills its original purpose in today’s political environment.

Presidential Election of 2000: Background

The presidential election of November 7, 2000, marked one of the most controversial events in U.S. electoral history. At the time, Bill Clinton’s presidency was concluding, and the contest attracted ten candidates overall. The Electoral College included 538 members, with 270 votes required for a majority.

The election faced multiple complications. Controversies like the infamous “hanging chads” in Florida and the confusing butterfly ballots raised doubts about the accuracy of the vote count. These issues delayed the final certification of results and forced judicial intervention. The event highlighted the vulnerabilities of relying on a system that places decisive weight on electoral votes rather than the popular majority.

Presidential Election of 2000: Results

The results revealed a striking divide between the popular vote and the Electoral College outcome:

Candidate	Popular Vote Total	Electoral Votes
Al Gore	50,996,039	267
George W. Bush	50,456,141	271

Although Al Gore won the popular vote by over half a million ballots, George W. Bush secured the presidency with a narrow Electoral College majority (271–267). This discrepancy renewed debates over whether the Electoral College undermines the principle of majority rule.

Why the Debate?

The 2000 election was not an isolated case. Later elections, particularly 2016, reignited controversy by producing results where the popular vote winner did not secure the presidency. Critics argue that this outcome contradicts democratic ideals, where every vote should carry equal weight.

The debate revolves around whether the Electoral College remains a practical safeguard in modern times or whether it has become a barrier to true representation of the electorate.

Issues Raised by the 2016 Election

The 2016 presidential election intensified scrutiny of the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, yet Donald Trump secured victory through the Electoral College. This raised the following critical questions:

• Does the Electoral College still reflect fairness in modern elections?

• Does it uphold or undermine democratic values by prioritizing state-level results over national preference?

These questions highlight concerns about whether the Electoral College system amplifies divisions and erodes voter confidence in elections.

Criticisms of the Electoral College

Scholars and political leaders have raised several criticisms of the Electoral College:

Criticism	Explanation
Outdated Structure	The system was designed in the 18th century and may not reflect the needs of a modern, diverse electorate.
Disproportionate State Power	Swing states wield excessive influence, while states with consistent voting patterns are largely ignored during campaigns.
Unequal Vote Weight	A vote in a smaller state can carry more influence than one in a larger state due to distribution of electoral votes.
Rogue Electors	Instances where electors cast ballots against their state’s results challenge the integrity of the process.
Political Polarization	Events such as the Capitol Hill riot have intensified calls for reevaluating whether the Electoral College contributes to political instability.

These criticisms reveal systemic weaknesses that question the legitimacy and democratic fairness of the institution.

Reforming the Electoral College

Reform advocates have suggested multiple ways to improve or replace the current Electoral College system. The goal is to enhance fairness, representation, and legitimacy while addressing the flaws highlighted in recent elections.

Proposed Reforms

• Proportional Representation: Electoral votes distributed according to each candidate’s share of the popular vote in a state.

• Population-Based Adjustments: Electoral votes recalibrated to better reflect demographic realities.

• Direct Popular Vote: Eliminating the Electoral College entirely to ensure the presidency aligns directly with the nationwide popular vote.

• Automatic Allocation: Removing the role of electors while retaining electoral votes, reducing chances of rogue voting.

Reform Plans

Plan	Description
Proportional Plan	Electoral votes awarded in proportion to the popular vote each candidate receives in a state.
Automatic Plan	Electors are eliminated, and electoral votes are automatically assigned to candidates based on state results.
District Plan	Electoral votes are distributed by congressional district, with the statewide winner receiving the remaining two votes.
Direct Popular Vote	The presidency is awarded to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, ensuring alignment with the majority of citizens.

While each reform has strengths, the direct popular vote is often seen as the most democratic alternative, though critics warn it may disadvantage smaller states.

References

Aldrich, J., Reifler, J., & Munger, M. (2015). Sophisticated and myopic? Citizen preferences for Electoral College reform. Public Choice, 158(3-4), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0056-z

Bugh, G. (2016). Electoral college reform (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Edwards, G. (2019). Why the Electoral College is bad for America (3rd ed.). Yale University Press.

POLI 330N Week 4 Assignment: Electoral College – Good or Bad?

Paige, L., & Neale, T. (2018). The Electoral College: An overview and analysis of reform proposals. Everycrsreport.com. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30804.html

Virgin, S. (2017). Competing loyalties in electoral reform: An analysis of the U.S. Electoral College. Electoral Studies, 49, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.07.003