Pros And Cons Of Abolishing The Electoral College

The Electoral College was established in 1787 as a compromise between having Congress select the next President of the United States, and having a direct democracy in which the popular vote selected the next President. The system has worked for over 200 years, so why change it now? Proponents for the Electoral College to remain the same argue that the Electoral College contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, enhances the status of minority interests, contributes to the political stability of the country by encouraging a two-party system, and maintains a federal system of government and representation. They argue it contributes to the unification of the country because without the Electoral College system, the most populous states would hold all the power in selecting the president and the small states would not matter. With the Electoral College, every state matters in selecting the president. The Electoral College also enhances the status of minority interests. Candidates know that because minorities tend to concentrate in areas with a large number of votes, the minority can make the difference between receiving all the votes from that state, and receiving none of the votes from that state. In continuation, The Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the
Instead, the system should just be modified. The whole winner-take-all system is what should be abolished in order to more accurately reflect the popular will across the nation. It should be replaced by the Congressional District Plan already put in use in Maine and Nebraska. In this new system, Electoral votes are distributed based on congressional district winners plus another two for whoever receives a majority of the state’s votes. This way, just like in Congress, the will of the people and the state are accurately represented in each