I read the other day that "reference sources indicate over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College and there have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981."

My question to you, or anyone you know who is able to answer this, is why do such political scientists favor the Electoral College? What is the specific benefit towards having such a system besides the fact that it gives a shared power to states along with the federal government?

- First is the reason you mention. The government originally was meant to be a sharing of power between the federal and state governments. It still is, but now the states have much less say in the federal government than they used to. In fact, as originally set up, only the House of Representatives was voted on by the people; the Senate was actually chosen by the state governments so the states had a direct say in what laws were passed. The 17th Amendment took the states out of the federal legislature and indirectly out of the federal judiciary (they had a vote in the Senate on judicial appointments). By getting rid of the Electoral College, the states would lose their power over the third branch of the government, the executive branch.

- The Electoral College helps prevent a candidate from pandering to one region, or running up their votes in certain states. In the Electoral College system, once you win a majority of the votes in a state there is no need to get more. In a direct election, the more votes in a state the better. Here's an example why this can be a bad thing. Massachusetts is very Democratic. The Democrats will almost always easily win 50% of the vote. In the Electoral College system, the Democratic candidate visits a few times to make sure he'll win and then moves on to other states. In a direct election, the Democratic candidate would spend a lot more time in Massachusetts trying to push his vote total to 70-80%. In a close election, why visit a state where the polls say it's 50-50%, spend a bunch of money and time, and maybe get 1-5% more votes when you can go to a safe state that says you're leading 60-40%, spend less money and effort, and maybe get 5-10% more votes. In direct election, candidates would spend more time in states they're easily going to win in order to run up their vote total. With the Electoral College, candidates have to actually fight the close states.

- The Electoral College prevents candidates from ignoring smaller states in favor of big metropolitan areas. In a direct election, Chicago IL has twice as much voting power as the entire state of New Hampshire.

- The Electoral College results are more immediately available. Even in a close election, only a few states might take awhile to count or recount. In a direct election in a close election, recounts could take weeks!

- The Electoral College, by limiting the number of viable candidates to two or three, prevents minor party candidates from becoming a dividing force in the election and forces those 2-3 candidates from being too extreme. With the Electoral College, a candidate with extreme views might win a few states but couldn't carry the election. Therefore the current political party system makes sure that their candidates' views are in the mainstream. In a direct election the current political party system would fall apart. For example, if the Republican Party picked a candidate that the religious faction didn't like, they could just split off and run their own candidate since every vote for their candidate would count, whether they won a state or not. If the financial conservatives didn't like the candidate they could run their own. If the environmentalists didn't like the Democratic nominee, they run their own. If the liberal feminist wing didn't like the candidate, they could split off. etc, etc, etc. The last proposed amendment to start direct elections said that if any candidate didn't get 40% the top 2 candidates would have a run-off. Now imagine if one of those top 2 candidates included one of the extremist factions, or even if both were extremist candidates. Under the Electoral College, the major or third parties know they cannot win with candidates out of the mainstream.

Sorry this is such a brief run through of reasons to support the Electoral College. Hopefully in January, I'll have a more in-depth article ready that will address these issues in full, and address the arguments brought up against the EC.

Thanks for your question and your interest in President Elect.
-----
James R Whitson

President Elect
U R L - http://presidentelect.org
EMAIL - james@presidentelect.org