Assuming George W. Bush garners enough ballots to take Florida’s25 electoral votes, he will assume the office of presidency despitelosing the popular election to Democratic candidate Al Gore by amargin of more than 200,000 votes.
Thisscenario has brought the much-maligned electoral college system onceagain to the forefront of political debate, with sentiments largelydivided along party lines.
Republicans, who stand to take control of the White House becauseof this system, defend it because it is written into the Constitutionand accuse democrats of whining over a simple technicality, whiledemocrats generally support the college’s reform or abolition.Undoubtedly, were the shoe on the other foot, party sentiment wouldbe divided in the opposite direction.
The current situation is not unprecedented, as presidents havebeen elected the same way before. But, in this age of education andpolitical involvement by the general populace, it is not likely tohappen without much more scrutiny.
It is the opinion of The Daily Aztec that the electoral collegehas long since lost its purpose and the time has come to get rid ofit. It is simply no longer needed, nor wanted, by the majority ofpeople.
It’s necessary to understand why the system exists in the firstplace and why it is written in the Constitution. It began as acompromise between factions among the framers, some of whom favored apresident being elected by popular vote and others who wantedCongress to make the decision.
The electoral college is and always has been an elitist system,set up by statesman who were fearful of a populace they deemed stupid– unable,
unworthy and incapable of making responsible decisions about whoshould lead them. While some may argue that the general populace isstill stupid, the voting public is surely more informed and capablethan at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Also, contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was notbased on the will of all the people. In fact, even after the UnitedStates separated from England, a substantial majority of thepopulation were still loyal to the crown and wanted to return thecolonies to the care of the British Empire. The framers were afraidthat, if a president were elected by popular vote, he might choose torealign the nation with England.
Yet another fault of the electoral system is that it disallows thepossibility of a third party ever gaining prominence. The college ismade up of representatives from the democratic and republicanparties. Thus, all electoral votes go to one of two candidates.
This was an issue after Ross Perot’s first Reform Party bid forthe presidency. Despite winning 19 percent of the popular vote, hereceived no electoral votes.
Furthermore, about half of the states have laws that forbidelectors from casting votes for candidates other than the one who wonin their state, while many states have no such laws. Thus, though itis rare, electors could conceivably vote for whoever they want,despite a candidate having won their state. In a race as close as thecurrent one, this could be disastrous for either candidate.
The Constitution may have established the electoral collegesystem, but this alone is no reason to keep it. The beauty of theConstitution, the reason that it has thrived thus far, is that it isa living, breathing document. Nothing is written in stone. TheConstitution allows for changes in order to better serve the will ofthe people, and this is one case when it obviously needs to be done.
When the people of the United States choose a candidate by popularvote and that candidate does not assume the presidency based on amore than 200 year old loophole, then its apparent that the will ofthe people means nothing.
