Do the events surrounding the Election of 2000 justify changes to the Electoral College? Explain why you think it does or why you think it does not with at least three reasons.

Answer 1

Gore won the popular vote, although with only a plurality. 48%

It's the general argument for replacing the electoral college with the popular vote

But we're stuck with the electoral college. It's part of the US constitution. It requires an amendment to end it, and that's most unlikely to happen.

hanging chads and recounts in Florida were the basis for a US Supreme Court decision, Bush v. Gore, a 5-4 controversial decision, on political lines. Vincent Bugliosi, former LA prosecutor, argued the decision was proof Bush stole the election, as the Supreme Court ruling expressly said its ruling was not precedent for any other case. That's unusual, as the purpose of the Supreme Court's rulings is to set precedent.

Then there was the Patrick Buchanan vote ballot problem, where many Democrats claimed they inadvertently voted for Buchanan, unknowingly, due to the poor design of the ballot. Bush only won Florida by about 500 votes. At least 500 Democrats probably voted or Buchanan, without knowing it.

Voter fraud might be a major reason for keeping the Electoral College, aside from states' rights, to give smaller states greater representation. Swing states narrow the focus of where voter fraud exists. It's irrelevant in non-swing states. With popular vote, it provides incentives to commit voter fraud in every state, city and precinct. With the electoral college, that incentive is only in swing states, making it more transparent, more easily investigated.

Limiting voter fraud, and respecting states' rights, as well as the reality that the Electoral College can't be changed, are 3 reasons to keep it.