Define electoral college and explain the unit rule. What are the arguments for and against electoral college?

Answer 1

Con: the popular vote is often at odds with the electoral college. Majority rule seems to be replaced by minority rule, which seems inconsistent with democracy.

Pro: Whether you like it or not, it's nearly impossible to change, given it's in the Constitution. It would require a Constitutional Amendment to change, and that seems most unlikely to happen.

The reason for the Electoral College is to give smaller states some representation that they wouldn't have otherwise. It's a check and balance against the "tyranny of the majority."

the Electoral College also reduces the incentive to commit voter fraud, as only the swing states matter. Then any voter fraud will be more easily discovered, since in a close election only a handful or 1 or 2 swing states make the difference. With a popular vote deciding a nationwide election, there's an incentive to commit voter fraud in all 50 states and in every precinct of every city.

Answer 2

I do not intend to open any controversy here, but with respect to the previous comment one could argue that the mere fact that the legislative hurdles to constitutional amendments are so high does not really amount to a pro-argument (why is something good just because I can't change it?) and that any arguments in favor of the E.C. still in circulation today tend to be historic in nature and their present day validity is dubious at best. Voter fraud doesn't exist to any meaningful extent, not here nor in any other western democracy. I would say that today the E.C.s overall effect is detrimental because it can be shown to contribute to our destructive polarization tendencies: useless for party A to campaign in most rural states and pointless for Party B to campaign in certain coastal states. And together with the egregious Senate asymetries the E.C.'s small-state bias has been guaranteeing a de-facto minority rule for the last couple of decades. This is virtually impossible to justify. No other modern democracy has such an archaic institution as the electoral college. I'd make a strong case that the con-arguments win. The US constitution is admired for many many good reasons but part of the reverence it receives here and abroad used to be the U.S's long history of stable governance (in contrast to much of Europe). But we seem to be on the verge of losing that stability and when that happens we will bitterly regret the current polarization. Isn't there an odd lack of pragmatic and logical thinking when reverence is based on longevity? Everything evolves and most man-made things become outdated eventually. Why should the E.C. be exempt from that?