Compare the way in which we elect Presidents in our current system to the proposal of the National Popular Vote movement. Which method is superior?

Answer 1

Hi Monique,

We currently elect our president and vice president with the Electoral College. The Electoral College was created the framers to protect government from the passionate whims of the people. It was believed that people couldn't be trusted to directly vote for president. Each state is assigned votes in the Electoral College based on their representation in Congress (2 senators + # of House members). Therefore, more populous states have more Electoral College votes (ie. California). Once polls close, whichever candidates gets the most votes in the state, gets all of the state's Electoral College votes. This is referred to as a winner take all system as they do not get the proportion of votes cast by the people in the state but all the state's votes. Whichever candidate is able to garner 270 votes first wins the election. This does not mean that the candidate won the popular vote. The popular vote is the how each American citizen cast their ballot. For example, in 2016 the popular vote did not match the Electoral College vote. More American citizens voted for Hilary Clinton but Donald Trump garnered 270 votes so he won the election. Many people call for a change in how we elect our president because they believe it should more closely reflect the will of the people. This would be a direct election or popular vote. Every vote cast by an American citizen would count as a vote for president. Therefore, the Electoral College would not decide elections but it would be decided by the people. Which is best is a matter of one's own opinion. Pros of the Electoral College are that it helps small states (less populous states) carry weight in elections since their populations do not match those of larger states and it also provides simplicity to elections. Cons of the Electoral College are that it may encourage voters to stay at home because some states are dominated by one party so all their state's votes goes to that party. For example, NY and Illinois are largely Democrat states. As a result, many Republicans in those states claim their vote doesn't even matter because the state will never get a majority of Republican votes so all the votes will go to the Democrat candidate. This situation also applies to states dominated by Republicans. Another con is that candidates spend most of their time, money, and campaign promises into swing states, states that are usually undecided and can be "swung" in either direction (Republican or Democrat).

Hope you found this helpful!

Georgette