537 votes. 537 votes is all that George Bush needed to win the Presidential Election of 2000. Not really, but those 537 votes were the difference that helped George Bush win the win the controversial presidential race in 2000 over Al Gore. The United States has been a perennial powerhouse throughout the world for over 200 years. Whether, it be a war fought in Iraq, or trading done in Colombia, the United States affects almost every foreign policy facet of every country. Because the United States is such a powerful country, the leaders matter because they are the ones making the decisions. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world because he is sitting at the helm of the most powerful country in the world. Since this man, or woman, is so powerful, the writers of the constitution sought out to create a process to elect the correct person for the job. The Electoral College was then created similar to a system similar to that of the legislative branch. The Electoral College has been in place since this country was founded, but now some people are trying to replace it with an alternative, most opting for the popular vote. Elections like the one that occurred in 2000 where the candidate may win the popular vote, but lose the election. These naysayers argue that the system is inherently undemocratic in how it operates and does not put candidate in office that a plurality of the country voted for. The Electoral College is still the best electoral process because it requires transregional appeal, helps give minorities a voice, increases the importance of the small states, and the amendment required to change the process would be much too hard to pass. 

Much of the general public does not completely understand how the Presidential Election and Electoral College work because the process is so complicated, however, it is actually very simple. Each state is designated a number of electors based on its congressional representation. For example, California is going to have many more representatives than South Dakota because California has a lot more representatives in Congress than South Dakota. There are 538 votes available in the Electoral College and a majority of 270 votes is required to win the Presidential Election (Ballaro). Whichever candidate wins the popular vote, wins all the electoral votes from that state. The first candidate to win 270 votes worth of states, wins the election. The framers of the Constitution featured many elements of the Constitution within the Electoral College, most notably, the federalism. The main idea of federalism is to split the power between the states and the national government. This was one of the main features of the Constitution because the framers, and everyone during that time, feared a strong central power because of what the English did. In addition, they knew from experience with the Articles of Confederation that states with too much power would make for an ineffective national government. These two situations made the writers of the Constitution try to form a system where the federal and state governments share the power. Most of the people that do not agree with the Electoral College do not fully understand how the system works or they are mad that the candidate of their choice did not win the election. 

One of the biggest arguments for the Electoral College is that it requires all Presidential candidates to have transregional appeal. It is not mathematically possible for a candidate to win one corner of the United States and win the general election because of it. The math requires the President to win states across the country, in hope of appealing to many states across the country. This requirement of transregional appeal means all candidates have to form a platform that draws more widespread appeal across the country. Judge Richard Posner is a Federal Judge that writes about Constitutional Law for The Slate, a Chicago newspaper. Posner is a big advocate for the Electoral College because of the transregional appeal that it requires. During a recent article, Posner describes what some citizens would feel like if the presidential elect does not have regional appeal: "The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disfranchised -- to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president (Posner). This is one of the reasons that the framers of the constitutions created the Electoral system. They wanted someone who the entire country can unite behind, not just part of it. If this safeguard was not in place, there would be much more domestic conflict, and maybe even civil wars within the country. Regional, domestic conflict has been a chronic issue among many countries that have vast amounts of land. For example, Russia and India have struggled through domestic conflicts for years because a lack of national unity. This is one of the many facets of the Electoral College that features federalism, however, this facet is one of the parts that empowers the federal government because it is uniting the country as one, not at all the states. 

Another reason that the Electoral College is good is because it gives minorities a voice in the election. Because the elections are done state by state, minority voices that are not normally heard in a national election are heard. A minority is not normally going to have the numbers to make the difference in the general election, however, it might make a difference at the state level causing a candidate to get more or less electors because of it. Tracey DiLascio is lawyer in New Jersey and one of the leading Political Science professors at New Jersey City University. She has published many articles on Election reform and the Electoral College. Regarding the voice of minorities within the Electoral College she says, "Often, these minorities represent a significant voting bloc on a statewide level, where their votes can be a deciding factor in winning the state" (Bowman). DiLascio is just one of many political scientists coming to the realization that minorities are having more and more of an impact in the Electoral College. It could have been the difference for Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 in Florida. Whether it be religion, race, or fiscal policy, the cause is irrelevant, minorities are making an impact. This facet of the Electoral College is an example of state power within federalism. The states, and the minorities that come with them, are given the power of making sure that all voices be heard. Whether it be the top 1%, or the bottom 99%, the states are depended on to make every voice heard in the election. 

The Electoral College has a lot of good characteristics, however, there are some drawbacks to the system. Most of the people that complain about the Electoral College are the supporters of the candidate(s) that did not win. The biggest issues that some argue is the inequality of representation among states. Breana Noble acknowledges gives an example of this in her articles on the costs and benefits of the Electoral College, California's 55 Electoral College votes mean there are 705,454 people per vote while there are only 194,717 people for each of Wyoming's three electoral votes" (Noble). Although Wyoming's three electoral votes are not much, and might not make a difference in the election, many people are very concerned with this. This math means that a vote in Wyoming is equal to a little over three and a half votes in California. Although this is fundamentally undemocratic, representation is based on the congressional presence of that state. Another issues with the Electoral College is the whole idea of the battleground states. The importance of these states are amplified because they can singlehandedly change the tide of the election depending on which candidate. For example, there is no point in a Democrat campaigning in Texas because that state is historically a red state. This might make Democrats in Texas feel non-important, however, there is no point in the Democratic candidate wasting resources in a state that he (or she) is going to lose. The main issue is that the winning presidential candidate can actually lose the popular vote. It has happened 4 times in the history of the United States, most notably, the 2000 election where it was determined George Bush edged Al Gore after a recount in Florida. The 2000 election was the first time it had happened in the modern era and sparked a firestorm of controversy surround the Electoral College. A majority of the country genuinely felt snubbed by the system. There are lots and lots of good aspects to the Electoral College, however, there are some potential drawbacks. Regardless of these drawbacks, the Electoral College has served us well for a very long time, and there is no reason why that should stop now. 

Another one of the benefits of the Electoral College is that it allows third-party candidates to have an impact on the election. Nobody is disputing the two-party system in American Politics because it is unavoidable. The Republicans and Democrats have monopolized all of the political power throughout the country.  This monopolization has greatly discourage any third-party candidate success in any Presidential election. No third party candidate has ever won the Presidency, however there has been candidates to make significant impacts on the election. John Turner, a writer of academic journal for JSTOR, wrote about some instances where third party candidates have had a major effect on the election, "In 1948, Strom Thurmond had 39 Electoral votes while running for the States' Rights Party. George Wallace acquired 72 electoral votes when he ran for the American Independent Party in 1968" (Turner). These are not the only candidates that have made an impact on the election, there have been eight candidates that have had enough electoral support to have a profound impact on the election (Turner). Although 39 votes might not seem like much compared to the 270 needed to win, or even the 538 electoral votes available, it is more than enough to have a profound effect on the election. The third party candidate is not normally a popular choice because the Republican and Democratic platforms cover most political ideologies. In addition, most people prefer to choose a candidate that has a chance to win office. The combination does encourage the two-party system, which makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win, however it does enable them to have an impact. By doing this, it gives third party constituency a voice that has to be heard. Once a constituency grows big enough, it has two choices: they can hold their ground and make a point to the public to show they are not budging on their issues or they can agree to support one of the candidates if he agrees to enact some of their policy ideas. The third-party candidate has never won, and never will, but the Electoral College makes sure that the voice of the third-party constituency is heard. 

The last benefit of the Electoral College is that it encourages battleground state voters to be more educated on the candidates and their platforms. It has been well documented that battleground states are very important in the election, to the point where a vote will be more meaningful in these states than a normal state. Richard Posner argues that the citizens of these battleground states are aware of their situation and want to take full advantage of it, "Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign -- to really listen to the competing candidates -- knowing that they are going to decide the election" (Posner). The United States of America is infamous for its public participation in politics, whether it be voter participation, or simply being educated on what each candidate brings to the table. Posner argues that the citizens of the swing states will notice the situation that they are in take full advantage of this. To do this, they are going to fully educate themselves on where the candidate stands on all of the important topics. 

The last reason why the Electoral College is good is because is there are no other viable alternatives where everyone is satisfied. The most popular suggested alternative to the Electoral College is the popular vote, however, the popular vote has many drawbacks. A candidate can dominate the popular vote by winning a few major cities around the United States or they can dominate one section of the United States, neither of which encourage transregional appeal. This lack of transregional appeal has the potential to cause regional conflict throughout the United States which could lead to many things, the worst of which is civil war. In addition, it is imaginable to have numerous situations similar to the 2000 election in Florida where a recount is needed. If there was a national recount, it would take a tremendous amount of time in the courts and manpower. The country and government would struggle every day in which the President is not inaugurated and would be the laughing stock of all the world powers. The last reason that an alternative electoral process would not be a good idea is because it would be a waste of time to even try. The last amendment was passed in 1992, and there have been attempts to pass more since then, all of which have been shot down very quickly. The first process that an amendment must pass through is to pass through the U.S. House of Representative and Senate with a two-thirds majority followed by passing the amendment through more than half of the state legislatures with a two-thirds majority. The other process it can be passed through is that it must be passed by a national convention with a two-thirds majority, and then it must pass through a simple majority of state conventions carrying a two-thirds majority. As one can see, it is incredibly difficult to pass an amendment, however it is not impossible. Although an amendment possible, no political scientist has come up with a viable alternative to the Electoral College that can be passed. 

The Electoral College is undoubtedly the best method of selecting the President of the United States. Yes, there are some drawbacks: unequal representation of states, unequal weight of votes, and the fact that a candidate can win the popular vote without winning the general election. Many argue that because of the last drawback listed, that the Electoral College is undemocratic. The problem with that argument is that founders of the United States and the Constitution sought out to create a Republic, not a democracy. Yes, the government is founded on democratic ideals, however, the United States of America is a democratic republic. As many drawbacks as there are, there are more benefits of having the Electoral College in place. It requires the winning candidate to have transregional appeal, it gives minorities a voice, and it helps let the third party have an impact on the election. Even if there was a viable option to replace the Electoral College, it would be incredibly difficult for it to be passed and put into place. Some people wonder why people care so much about the electoral process of our president. Everyone in the world, not just this country, should care because the President is, without a doubt, the most powerful person in the world. The President affects most everything in the world, from how much the U.S. trades with Brazil, to how much Iran is reducing their nuclear arsenal. American citizens should take this into account when passively saying that the President is not that important. One of the only ways to solve this issue is to educate the public. It is possible to educate them about the electoral process and what effects the President of United States on foreign and domestic citizens. The Presidency should not be brushed off by any citizen as something that does not matter, which means that the process which puts somebody in that office is just as important. The United States of America is greatest country in the world, and will stay that way. Or at least until January 20, 2016 at noon ... 
