The Electoral College: Follow-up

The readings provided a thorough background on the electoral college’s structure in contemporary elections. We had several misconceptions on how the college operates that the readings were able to correct.

We spent the majority of the time discussing whether the electoral college is an appropriate method to elect the president. We unanimously agreed that the electoral college was designed (and redesigned) for a different time. Furthermore, the founding fathers did not anticipate the progression of American politics (specifically, the birth of the political parties and the two-party system) and hence could not take this into consideration in its design.

We argued that the popular vote is a better method for electing the president because more Americans can become educated about and involved with the political process than could in the early 1800s. Thus, the popular vote would be more reflective of the how the nation feels as a whole.

The most cogent arguments against the popular vote were political fragmentation (effectively the polar opposite of the two-party system) and the acrimonious post-election struggle that would ensue due to close popular vote elections. We acknowledged that these were valid concerns.

Overall, we still believe the popular vote is the better system to elect the president, but we are aware of the biases we hold as liberals living close to a major metropolitan center.

A side point: we also agreed that election day should become a national holiday. This would alleviate (effective) disenfranchisement for those who cannot afford to take work off to vote.