The Electoral College is a body of 538 voters selected by each party based on the population of each state who cast the ultimately deciding vote in presidential elections. This body of voters is the deciding factor in every presidential election except in rare circumstance. To win a presidential election, a candidate is required to acquire a majority of the voters, which in this case is 270. This system of election has been used in the United States since it's foundation as an independent nation. In mostly all elections, the Electoral College is a formality within elections, because in many elections the popular vote is fairly equal to the number of electoral votes they received. However, in some circumstances, like the 2000 election, this system can be broken with the proper electoral strategies. While Al Gore held the majority of the popular vote, George W. Bush was able to win the presidency due to his higher number of electoral votes.
First off, electoral votes are decided by a states population, which makes the popular vote very similar. In the case a candidate wins the popular vote of a state, they win those electoral votes. However, a candidate can win more states and still lose in the electoral vote due to the division of electoral votes. Even if a candidate won the entire Midwest with the current electoral division, the state of California would be able to match basically every vote, and that is just a single state. It is easy to see this is a flawed system, but also adds a strategic value to the presidential campaign.
However flawed this system may be I do not think it should be abolished. It is a required part of elections. That is why I believe some of the following reformations to the system would be well received. First off, the Electoral College should not be a winner-take-all format. As I have been looking through some reform options, I think that a proportional system would be a much better system. For example, let's say our classroom held a vote for the class president. In our classroom, 10 votes for one candidate, 8 votes for the other, and 2 write in a candidate. Let's also say that our classroom held 5 electoral votes out of the schools 538. By a proportional system, those electoral votes would be divided based on the votes, giving more power to each individual voter. This would also give a little more power to the small population states since they could prove to be more weighted if the votes are split in the larger states.
One of the key political impacts of the current electoral system is that a candidate will hit certain topics that they are strong in just to win a particular area. For example, we could use the death penalty as a topic. Considering Texas is fairly well known as a pro-death penalty state, a candidate could use this to his advantage, while not concerning himself as much with other topics that would more likely affect a state of less importance to his campaign. It's a biased style of strategy, but a necessary one to win with the current system. With changes a candidate would be more freely able to express their goals without the worry of harming their chances of victory drastically. I think this would also decrease the outlook many people have on government, that it is a corrupt place filled with greedy people and liars.
There are many ways that this system could be strengthened. Sadly, the system will not likely be changed. Like people say, “why fix something that isn't broken?” The system isn't broken, but with the correct improvements it could be made to survive a much longer time without the need for revision.
