Gavin Esser Cara Stoddard English 102-02 2 November 2012

How Current Day America is Not a True Democracy The recent election was a huge source of controversy among the media. Even now after it has been decided, the election is still being talked about. As with every election, the topic brought up talk

about the Electoral College. This is a system set in place during the founding of our country and it is how we, as a country, decide our next president. When citizens go to the voting booths to cast their vote for president, that vote does not directly count towards the election. Instead every state has a certain amount of electors based on population. Each state gets at least three electors; two for the senators and at least one additional elector for population. If there are enough people there can be significantly more than three electors. Currently there are 538 electors and it takes 270 votes for a candidate to win the presidency. In recent years there has been a growing movement to abolish the Electoral College for various reasons. This group consists mostly of liberals and this group is based around National Popular Vote Movement. They have already made real change towards ridding the country of the Electoral College. Others, consisting mostly of republicans and conservatives, believe that the Electoral College is instead a good thing and that we should not try and change that which has been a part of our country since the beginning. They also have incentive to keep it because it allows the Republican Party to gain more votes from their base. There is another view that doesn't necessarily support the Electoral College, but they also believe that any replacement system thus far proposed would be even worse or much too difficult to implement. These people are not really able to be put into any particular group but they seem to be in the majority and could be easily labeled as moderates. Growing awareness of this problem has brought real change from the National Popular Vote movement and will continue to grow as the populace becomes more politically educated. Because of the flaws and undemocratic tendencies, The

Esser 2 Electoral College should be changed and amended to create a newer, better system that is both fair and equipped to handle the conventions of the modern world. Electoral Undemocracy In the Declaration of Independence it is clearly stated that all men are created equal, but using the Electoral College, voters are certainly not equals. One of the main reasons behind the Electoral College in the beginning was to make small states important in elections. However, the system has backfired on this and has instead created a political field where the majority of states do not matter because they are either too small to count for many votes, or they have a predetermined vote based on a statewide bias. As Jonathan Turley, a writer for USA Today, said, "rather than encouraging presidential candidates to take small states seriously, it results in turning most states into near total irrelevancies." This is because the large majority of states are almost certainly going to go one way or the other and since the candidates know this, they won't bother to spend time or money there. Instead all of the focus will be on the few "swing states" such as Iowa and Ohio. Ohio was a particularly important state during the latest election and while it didn't end up coming down to only Ohio, that is what the experts expected to happen. Swing states are, according to Tiffany Middleton from Social Education, states that have a tendency to vote either way in an election thus making those states the only truly important ones. This is only too true. I live in Idaho and it is a predetermined fact that my state will end up casting our electoral votes for the Republican party. They always do. This means that no matter who I decide to vote for it doesn't matter and my vote won't make any sort of difference. This is a depressing thought for someone who wants to be politically active. As someone who follows politics closely, I feel that this is unfair and undemocratic. As written in an article from CQ Researcher titled "Electoral College," "in effect the Electoral College is denying participation in the election from much of the country" (982). Beyond this exclusion and unfairness between states there is also a direct statistic difference between voters in different states. In an article on The Huffington Post written by Seth Borenstein, he explains

Esser 3 that a vote in Wyoming statistically counts for nearly three and a half times that of a vote cast in say Ohio. The reason for this is that every state must have at least three electors and more are then added based on population. This works usually but in states such as Wyoming where the three electors are too much for the population, it creates technical inequality that surely defeats the purpose of the system in the first place. All of these effects on voters stack up and the creation is an entire system virtually designed to exclude many voters and if not that they will still not be voting on a level playing field. Along with the inequality the entire Electoral College is at its roots undemocratic. The first and main reason for this is that presidents can be elected without winning to popular or majority vote. Turley reports that fifteen presidents have taken office with having more than fifty percent of the total vote and as written in the article "Electoral College," "Bush was the fourth president elected without having the popular vote" (979). These facts are disturbing to me because the United States of America is supposed to be a democracy. The president should be chosen by the people, for the people. Electors may act as representatives but they can't be right all of the time and the fact is that if the electors don't believe the people made the right decision, they don't have to vote with the people. For example if Idaho for once had a popular vote in support of a Democratic candidate during an election and the electors were adamantly against said candidate they could simply vote the other way. This wild card of the elctors having the ultimate and final say in where the states' electoral votes go just seems wrong. A few people should not have the power to decide over all of their constituents, even if it has almost never happened that way. Even if the electoral votes do go for the states' popular votes, there can still be situations where the electoral votes for a candidate outweigh the popular vote on a national scale. More people may vote for one candidate but the states with a large amount of electoral votes choose the other candidate meaning that the less popular candidate would win. This happened in the 2000 election where Bush won but Gore got the popular vote. This should not happen ever and it has already

Esser 4 happened four times in our history. Events such as this prove the undemocratic nature of the entire Electoral College system and paint a convincing picture of why it should be changed. Some people, primarily conservatives, believe that the electoral college is a perfectly fine system and should be preserved for various reasons, or to be more accurate they want to believe that anything else would be much worse. As Norman Williams writes in his article, "The Electoral College is only modestly malapportioned." This implies that other systems such as a national popular vote would be much more off base. Another argument commonly heard is that America was founded with the Electoral College and it has served our country well up until this point; so, why should we fix it if it isn't broken? Williams points out that even if the Electoral College is not a perfect system, other options would indeed be worse. A national popular vote for example would only cause strife and discrimination as well as being nearly impossible to handle and regulate. The people who wish to keep the Electoral College intact do make a decent point; changing the system now would cause massive upheaval and discord. However, this shock would only last for a short time and in the end America would be left with a system that is not only better but also appropriate for the modern age. Beyond this the Electoral College happens to be more unfair than they would have us believe. Swing states effectively reduce most of the states into nothing worth fighting for. As Turley writes, "Elections have begun to be dominated by swing states." Also with the lack of effective representation most voters don't get a fair shake at electing their president which is simply not acceptable for a democracy such as ours.

The Roots of Injustice Besides being a good way to elect a president back when the United States was founded the Electoral College was also designed around the idea of slavery in America. George Edwards mentions this in his book Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. Edwards explains that since black people could not vote back then, but the south had a large population of them, they were counted into the

Esser 5 population for electoral votes. This helped to stabilize the differences between north and south. This is a problem for another time. It has been many years since black people couldn't vote let alone when they were slaves and each one of them only counted as three fifths of a person. These archaic ideals are written into the Electoral College and have led to the bastardized version we have today that is not truly good for anyone except those trying to bend it towards their specific angle and that is corrupt and wrong. The other cause of what the Electoral College has become today has been the emergence and domination of swing states in the political scene. They have practically rendered voting worthless for many states and hyper accentuated the process among those states that are considered swing states. As Borenstein reported there is only about twenty one percent of the population living in states that "matter." This means that nearly eighty percent of the population is being left out of any considerations during election season. Even in mainstream new such as the article by Turley it is written that these swing states are dominating the elections. The Electoral College Created swing states and swing states have shaped the voting climate into what it is today. Revisionist Future One of the many reasons why the Electoral College still stands as is today, is that a feasible solution has yet to gain enough interest to be passed. To create the change our nation needs we will first have to create enough public knowledge and resonance about the topic for congress to become pressured enough to consider the change. This change will be a compromise between the complete abolishment of the Electoral College and simply leaving it as is. The states will still cast electoral votes, but these votes will be entirely determined by the popular vote of the state. This is because the electors will be completely removed from the system so that no one person has the power to overturn the will of the people. Along with this the House of Representatives shall be expanded to increase representation and total electoral votes, thus creating a more level playing field in percentages at least.

Esser 6 Keeping the challenge in getting this change to happen in mind, it is up to civilians who are politically active and against the continuation of the Electoral College to start spreading word among the general populace. This has already been happening in recent years especially after how close the 2000 election was. Many people were upset at the results and how it was finally decided. It came down to such petty details and it did not seem to be very legit. The public awareness created by this even and by potential future events will be the turning point of the debate over the Electoral College. The solution to this problem will work better and should satisfy the desire of the people as a whole. it will also ensure that their rights will remain intact as it creates a more democratic system for all. nstead of abolishing the Electoral College completely, change the system and get rid of the electors entirely. One of the largest problems with the Electoral College is the electors themselves. They can change their votes to fit with their part affiliations or really for any reason whatsoever. As Orson Card points out in his article on Ornery American, the possibility "that a few electors should change their vote in order to 'comply with the will of the people.' This is such an evil idea." Because of the disturbing fact that electors can pick without consent of the people, the electors happen to be one of the most problematic parts of the college and by removing them the entire system would be made better as whole. After the electors have been removed we would keep the same electoral vote system but the votes would instead be decided by a statewide popular vote. This process would allow for a more democratic system overall and still keeps the positives that are in place now. Many people would disagree with my proposed solution in favor of a National Direct Popular Vote. They would argue that it is the only way to truly have a democracy. This was the way democracies were supposed to run. David Gringer contends, in his article in Columbia Law Review, that the majority of people would prefer if the nation switched from the Electoral College to a direct vote system. I must concede the point that, on the surface, a national popular vote would indeed be the most purely democratic way to handle an election; however, these people are not taking into account any of

Esser 7 the huge problems with a system like this. A nationwide popular vote would be very unwieldy and hard to implement and regulate, whereas a state one would be easier to manage. Along with this, keeping the electoral vote system will keep the voting fraud down because the overall percentages will be changed little by this and therefore the electoral votes will be unaffected by foul play. Gringer also points out in his article that people would be even less represented in a system like this, especially minority voters who could be easily overwhelmed. It may seem like the Electoral College suppresses minorities and in some ways it does, but it also protects them by allowing the minorities voting power when grouped together. If it was the whole country put together some minorities would just be drowned out. This is why the answer is to change the Electoral College instead of abolishing it completely. Along with just replacing the electors in my system, the plan is also increase representation by enlarging the House of Representatives. There are no rules in place in the government to limit the size of the house. By increasing the numbers there each state will get more electoral votes and therefore even more representation thus an even more democratic system while keeping most of the current system intact. The only restraints on representatives are that they must represent at least thirty thousand people, but at the moment our representatives are standing for people that total more than six hundred thousand. The number of representatives has not been scaled up in quite a long time and it is time for this to happen again in order to help keep our political system fair for all. The first step in completing this process as said before is advocacy among the populace. The news media is currently doing some of this due to the upcoming election and speculations about the closeness of it in the Electoral College. There is even possibility of a tie happening (Brown). Along with the general media, concerned people must take action and spread word, both to their friends and family and across the internet. If enough of a buzz is whipped up, the problem will be taken seriously and phase two can begin which is the part where congress must make change. People will still need to back the solution in order to force their representative to actually represent them. Congress will then meet

Esser 8 and decide what must be done. As with most bills this one will probably be revised and not all of it will make it through, but chances are that if it does the basic concept will remain and create a good change for this country. The End to Unbalance Whether or not the movement to change the electoral college ever gains enough traction to take hold and become a reality, it is a system that desperately needs a change. It was a system that worked when it was established and there were reasons for the various facets making up the Electoral College but over the years the facets have weathered and changed. The original Electoral College simply does not fit into the new modern America. America was founded on the ideas of freedom, equality, and democracy. The government that was setup back then was not perfect and did not fulfill all of these goals and it is not perfect today either, but it is certainly further along. The founding fathers formed our government with the inherit ability to be molded and shaped over the years to fit growing culture. They knew that the American dream couldn't be achieve instantly. It would take many years of growth and development to mold our country into what it needs to be. The Electoral College is one more part of the system that must be changed in order to ensure a better future for the country and every single citizen living therein. The key to creating this change lies with every American who desires change. Change does not spontaneously happen in response to a hopeful wish, it happens in response to activism, determination, and the will of those who would work for the betterment of their own futures and the future beyond themselves. With a determined effort real change could indeed happen as congress would be forced to concede to the will of those whom they represent because it is the people's responsibility to control their own lives and what they are governed by.

Esser 9 Works Cited

Borenstein, Seth. "Electoral College Math: Not All Votes Are Created Equal." Huffington Post. 29 Sep. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. Brown, Lara. "How Close is Too Close?: The 2012 Election in the Electoral College." Society Sep. 2012: 418-422. Print. Card, Orson Scott. "The Electoral College." The Ornery American. 9 Nov. 2000. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. Edwards, George. Why The Electoral College Is Bad For America. London: Yale University, 2004. Print. Gringer, David. "Why the National Popular Vote Plan is the Wrong Way to Abolish the Electoral College." Columbia Law Review 1 Jan. 2008: 182-230. Print. Middleton, Tiffany. "Demystifying the Electoral College." Social Education Sep. 2012: 169-173. Print. "The Electoral College." CQ Researcher 8 Dec. 2000: 977-1008. Web. Turley, Jonathon. "End The Electoral College." USA Today. 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. Williams, Norman. "Reforming the Electoral College." Georgetown Law Journal Nov. 2011: 173-236. Print.