Pro v Con: Electoral College

by Jonah Sachs ’20

The Electoral College has been a part of the nation’s history since its very foundation, creating a “checks-and-balances” system for elections. The idea behind the system is hardly complex, but in practice, the Electoral College presents various issues and resolutions for many problems the country faces. It has existed within the United States for almost 300 years, yet many Americans across the nation think it is time for a change. One must think of the real question when contemplating this idea: do the timeless benefits of the Electoral College really beat out the large costs of maintaining an age old system?


●Despite the lack of minority support, it still gives regional representation in the presidential election. Thanks to population density around the country, a candidate must receive votes from different locations, thereby promoting national support.
●Candidates must appeal to minorities in swing states to gain the total vote, thereby making some lesser-represented groups, like the Green Party, feel more in-tune with their vote.
●The Electoral College focuses on guaranteeing certainty to the outcome of an election, making the need for recounts and run-off elections obsolete. The majority of the time, the election turns out fair and widely accepted.


●The system gives only the majority vote of each state the total amount of votes (aside from Maine and Nebraska), which means that an entire state can be gained through a one percent difference. This often gives a sense of worthlessness among voters of a minority party in majority-dominated states.
●Disputes between a win via popular vote and via the Electoral College can easily occur if the popular vote comes from candidates tied neck-and-neck.
●Because states are weighed less than others, less attention can be given to those with fewer people. This leads to more of a distance between citizens and candidates.