Bailey 1

Brett Bailey
Mr. Hawkins
Period 5
3/8/16
Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?
For a long time, Americans have questioned the way that the Electoral College system is
run and how many hoops a person must jump through to become the President of the United
States. The Electoral College system was set in place by the framers of the Constitution because
they did not like the idea of a direct vote but wanted the citizens of the United States to have a
say in the way the country was run. Not only do the Presidential candidates have to go through
the process of winning a partys nomination, they also have to win the most votes from a group
of 538 electors that most people have never seen before. There are many flaws to the Electoral
College system that make the road to the White House way more complicated than it should be.
The Electoral College should be abolished because it doesnt fairly represent the countrys states,
it's unfair to third-party candidates, and it is completely undemocratic.
The Electoral College system suffers from many flaws, one of them being that states
arent fairly represented. The number of electoral votes is supposed to be distributed fairly across
the 50 states in the United States according to the number of Senators and Representatives the
state has, but many large states with high populations dont have a proportional amount of votes
as small states do. This flaw allows for the citizens of the smaller states in this country, like
Wyoming and Alaska, to have a much bigger say for which candidate gets the electoral votes.
This shows a clear problem in the Electoral College, yet politicians have not done much to
attempt to even out the votes of the Electoral College. According to Document D, you can add up

Bailey 2
13 of the smaller states votes and their votes will double the total amount of votes Illinois has,
which has a larger population than all 13 of those states combined. This is the easiest way to
notice that the Electoral College system is unfair to larger states because it clearly gives the
people of a smaller state a larger say than the people of Illinois will have. This example can be
seen with a number of states, where larger states simply don't receive the amount of electoral
votes that they should according to their population. Document F of the DBQ explains that in the
case of a tie at the National Convention, delegates would vote on the President with each state
casting one vote. This means that the state of Wyoming will be equivalent to California, a state
that is 700 times larger population wise. This is just outright unfair to the larger states of the
United States, and it is definitely surprising that a change has not been made to this system. All
of these outrageous examples of how the state's voting system is run are perfect examples of how
the Electoral College system is undemocratic and is in violation of political equality.
A gleaming example of how the Electoral system bars out political equality is the
favoritism over the two main parties of the Nation. The first example of its unfairness toward
third parties would be the 1992 Election, when Ross Perot took twenty percent of the vote and
came away without a single electoral vote. The Constitution states that anybody who is a natural
born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for 14 years can run for
President, and states nothing about the election being between two major parties. The Electoral
College system clearly makes it harder for an Independent candidate to run because it is not a
winner-take-all election, and most independent candidates have to fight very hard to get any
electoral votes. Document E states that changing the Electoral College system would make it
easier for third-party candidates to run, and that they would completely shake up the election.
Many people view this factor as a positive, because any person who is fit to be President should

Bailey 3
be given a fair chance. In an election where a direct vote is held, Independent and third-party
candidates would get a much better and more fair chance at becoming the President. Document E
also states that the current electoral system discourages independent candidacies that splinter the
electorate. This should not be viewed as a negative thing, because any candidate should get a fair
and equal chance to be elected no matter what party they belong to. Discouraging candidates
because of their political party is undemocratic and unconstitutional, and should never happen in
the Presidential election. These examples show how the Electoral College system favors the twoparty system, which is undemocratic.
The biggest issue with the Electoral College system is how it is patently undemocratic.
According to Document A of the Electoral College Mini-Q, a candidate running for President
could win the nomination by simply winning the most votes in 11 out of the 50 United States.
This would allow for a candidate to only focus on 11 of the 50 states and still win the nomination
for President. This example is laughably outrageous, and is clearly undemocratic and unjust.
Another example is the 1980 election, when Jimmy Carter won 41% of the popular vote, yet he
only pulled 9% of the electoral vote. The Electoral College allowed for Ronald Reagan to take
91% of the electoral vote while only winning 50% of the popular vote. This is evidently
undemocratic, as it favors the votes of some citizens and clearly dismisses the votes of many
citizens that were the minority in many states. The final example is in Document G, where it
shows several elections where a candidate who has won the majority of the popular vote yet still
loses the election due to the electoral vote. Some of the candidates won by almost 1 million
votes, yet still lost the election because of the Electoral College. This is a perfect example of why
the Presidential nomination should became a direct vote. The Electoral College system is clearly
biased and undemocratic, yet the nation still uses it to nominate its President every four years.

Bailey 4
There are a few valid arguments to be made as to why the Electoral College system is
useful and should continue to be run the way it is. It is fair to state that the Electoral College is
set in place to represent the smaller states and citizens who otherwise would not get a say.
Although this argument is valid, it is obvious that it has flaws. In the process of giving the
smaller states a say in the Presidential nomination, the Electoral College has allowed the larger
states of the Nation to lose much of their say and become underrepresented in the Presidential
nomination. Another argument for keeping the Electoral College is that it prevents ideologues
and famous people who arent familiar with politics to end up in office. Although this idea may
seem good, it is very important to note that this idea is unconstitutional and completely
undemocratic. Also, it is fair to note that this argument could completely fail, as uneducated
celebrities could enter as a candidate in either of the two major parties and completely bypass
this system, as seen in the 2016 election. All of these ideas are good arguments to read on paper,
but seeing them in action shows how they fail to work and hinder the rights of American citizens.
The Electoral College system should be abolished because it is unproportional and
prejudiced toward larger states, unfair to third-party candidates, and unconstitutional and
undemocratic. The smartest way for the Presidential nomination to be run would be to have a
direct popular vote made by the citizens. This system would be the most fair and equal to all of
the candidates and voters. This is why I believe that the Electoral College should altogether be
abolished.