On five occasions, a U.S. presidential candidate who lost the popular vote has become President because of the electoral college. This defies the will of the American people.
The electoral college weighs votes differently based on location and reduces the number of states that candidates campaign in. Therefore, the electoral college should not be used to determine the winner of presidential elections.
The electoral college should be replaced because it too frequently goes against what the American people want. Because of the electoral college system, the candidate who lost the popular vote became president in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. This shows that citizens do not actually have the final choice in who becomes president. In a republic, citizens elect representatives to serve the will of the majority of the people. The American people should be able to choose who they want to become the next president; otherwise, the president does not represent the will of the people. Since the popular vote better reflects the wishes of the American people, the electoral college should be eliminated.
Moreover, smaller states should not be given an amplified voice because each citizen deserves an equal vote. Since all states receive two extra electoral votes on top of those awarded for population, small states have more electoral votes per person than larger states. Each Wyoming vote is worth four times more than each California vote and twice as much as each Montana vote. Is the opinion of an individual residing in Wyoming more important or valuable than that of one in California or Montana? The president represents all of the people of the United States, so his or her election should be conducted as a nationwide popular vote, instead of an amalgamation of fifty statewide popular votes. All citizens in America should be treated equally under the law, including an equal ability to influence the election of the president.
With the electoral college, candidates focus on campaigning in just a few swing states instead of across the country. Forty-eight states have a winner-takes-all system, meaning that, in the general election, candidates focus on states they think they can swing to the other side, while ignoring other parts of the country.
With or without the electoral college, candidates tend to campaign in urban areas over rural areas because they can reach a higher concentration of potential voters in a short amount of time. However, under the electoral college, candidates visit the urban areas in just the swing states during the general election. In a popular vote system, they’d be forced to visit states throughout the country. Candidates could not just campaign in large coastal cities under a popular vote system because they would still need to persuade undecided voters, including those in the Rust Belt, to win.
Ultimately, the debate about the electoral college is about equality in voting and the will of the American people. I believe in an America where governmental systems do not discriminate against people because of where they live. The candidate who receives the majority of the American people’s support should become President. The electoral college should be replaced with the popular vote because Americans deserve a fair system.
