The Electoral College Reform

Electoral College Reform Five times in our nation’s history, the Electoral College has failed and elected a president that was not the majority vote from the election. The two most recent cases were the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore and the 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. During elections, there is always a good turnout because people are excited to vote for the next president of the United States, but what they do not know is that they do not directly elect the president under the Electoral System. The Electoral College needs to be changed to a more efficient system with less possible error in electing the president. The Electoral College has many flaws. Under the current system, there is nothing
The first plan is the Automatic Plan. This removes the possibility of faithless electors, and also removes the possibility of the House of Representatives deciding the winner of the presidential race (Longley, 1972, 43-48). This ensures that the election has less chance of electing the wrong person and keeps they system honest. The second plan is the Proportional Plan. This plan removes the problem of winner-take-all by dividing the electoral vote proportionate to the popular vote (Longley, 1972,49-56). The third plan is the District Plan. This plan proposes that two senator votes go to the state majority vote, and the rest are divided among the districts (Longley, 1972, 57-63). The fourth and final main plan is the Direct Vote Plan. This plan would fix all problems with the Electoral College; it would remove the faithless elector possibility, eliminate the winner-take-all policy, eliminate the unequal vote problem, prevent elections from being decided by the House of Representatives, and it would guarantee the popular vote wins (Longley, 1972, 64-68). The reformations and fixes to the Electoral College all fix at least one problem but bring up a new unique problem with it. None of the popular alternatives to the current Electoral College have a perfect fix, but they all fix at least one big part of
The state political parties who choose electors resist change. The officials are not sure how exactly to change the system. It is easier to resist change than it is to start it. The problem with the Automatic Plan is that it is such a small fix of only one problem that it would not be worth the time for such a small change. The problem with the Proportional Plan is that it would undermine the two party system and deflate the president’s victory margin, making it hard to lead (Longley, 1972, 49-56). The Proportional Plan would make it harder to obtain the 270 votes necessary to win, which would raise chances for more elections being decided by the House of Representatives Longley, 1972, 56). The Problem with the District Plan is that it is more likely to get Electoral College deadlock, simply meaning no candidate gets the majority vote and the decision moves to the House of Representatives. The problem with the Direct Vote Plan is that it would deflate the winning margin of the president and make it harder to govern (Longley, 1972, 68). The minor parties would flourish under this system. The candidates would be forced to spend more money on their campaign because they would have to campaign nationwide rather than focusing on swing states only. All of the main alternative plans fix some of the bigger problems but bring in new problems that the old system does not have. There will