Ben Stanelle

Sam Hackworth

English 102

February 8th 2016

Do we still need the Electoral College?

I have always been curious about why the United States uses the Electoral College system. It has always seemed to me like the Electoral College was an out of date method of deciding the president. Something that was necessary back when taking a nationwide popular vote seemed implausible. However with technology now a days it seemed strange to me that we would still declare a winner by state, and have the members of the given chosen party vote in the Electoral College. It's not like it makes the process any quicker. Now a days the popular vote is always right next to the Electoral College votes on your screen wither you're watching MSNBC, Fox News or really any Television News Channel on Election Day. However no matter how many times you see the popular vote change and update on Election Day it is an almost meaningless number, it is the Electoral College that will ultimately decide the outcome of the vote. Seeing as the most recent presidential election was in 2014 when I was 17, I was unable to vote so it may seem curious why I would choose to write about a system that I have yet to directly be a part of. However I believe that our right as American to vote is one of our most important rights. That's why I would like to see the system changes to one I see fit because I plan on voting in presidential elections for the rest of my life. That is why I would like to research to find out if switching to a popular vote method would be better than the Electoral College system we use now. 

Walter Hickey, "The Electoral College Is Brilliant, And We'd Be Insane to Abolish it," Business Insider, October 3rd. 2012. February 6th. 2016.  

In this article the author is making his case for why he believes that the Electoral College is just as important and well-functioning system now as it ever was. The author of this article Starts by saying that he understands why one might think the Electoral College system is unjust, however he makes several claims that would lead you to believe otherwise. The author's first major evidence is that the framers of the constitution set up the Electoral College because they wanted the states to choose the President.  As well the author brings up the fact that more rural states would be skipped in the campaign season seeing as not enough people live there to make it worth a stop on a Presidential hopeful's campaign. And the final major piece of evidence is that winning the Electoral College can be a good indication of wither a president will be successful or not. This is because it shows that they are good at making decisions that deal with resource allocation, something that the president has to deal a lot with. This article was written by Walter Hickey, who writes for the politics section of Business Insider. I believe Hickey is a credible source because the source that he is writing for has credibility. They would not receive this credibility if they hired writers that were not credible as well. 

n.p. "Why do we have the Electoral College Archieves.gov. U.S National Archives and Record Administration. N.d. Web. February 3rd 2016.

In this article the author makes the Claim that their needs to be a change to the way the Electoral College works. Although the author of this article does make a weak argument by not proposing an answer to their claim, this article did have very good evidence for changing the Electoral College system. The first piece of evidence that the author gives us is that in the last 200 years there has been over 700 proposals in congress to change the Electoral College. Although there has never been a change to it, the Electoral College is the most discussed topic in the history of congress. The next piece of evidence that the author gives us is a study done amongst lawyers on wither or not they agree with the Electoral College. This study seems extremely credible to me because it is taken amongst only lawyers, or people who have a better understanding then the normal person on Laws. Finally the author points out that in the 1992 election Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote. However Perot did not win a single vote in the Electoral College. It's strange to think that someone who was able to receive 19% Of the nation's vote went represented in the Electoral College, there forth proving that it is almost impossible and certainty implausible for a third party candidate to ever become the president. The major value at stake here is wither or not you believe the Electoral College is a fair way of determining the presidency. I believe that my source is credible to discuss such a topic because the NARA is directly involved in the record keepings for the Electoral College.

n.a. "Big Question: Why do we still have the Electoral College?" Magazine. Marquette. Edu. Marquette Magazine, summer 2014

This article starts off by giving some background on the Electoral College. The author explains that Alexander Hamilton believed the Electoral College would lead to a sort of insight amongst voters. Most other Constitutional framers thought that the Electoral College was a good way to protect states' rights.  The major claim being made in this article is that even though the Electoral College may seem outdated it is the method that we use to select the president and should not be changed. The first piece of evidence was that the author claims that small states would be ignored In a system were the popular vote determines the winner. Also the Electoral College tends to reflect the outcome of the popular vote, it just presents a clearer winner. For example in 2012 President Obama won 53% of the popular vote however won over two-thirds of the vote in the Electoral College. This article comes from a credible source because the author of this article writes for Marquette Magazine and educational magazine. 

Wither or not we should switch to a nation wide popular vote to determine the president from the current Electoral College system is an arguable topic because it takes into accounts someone's views on topics like states' rights and wither or not they agree that all Americans should have an equal vote for who the president should be. In my two articles that argue that the Electoral College, despite being old, is still the best method in determining who the president will be. Some shared views that the authors have are that it would keep presidential candidates in more states instead of focusing on just those with large populations. Also both articles brought up that the framers of the constitution wanted the states to determine the president not just the nationwide majority. Finally both articles agreed that the Electoral College system tends to force a majority. Both these articles were in contrast to my article that claimed that we would be better off without the Electoral College. This article points out that although changing to a popular vote would keep presidential candidates out of states with low population this article brought up the fact that this is something that already happens, as well many candidates skip states with huge populations whose outcomes they have already determined and instead only tend to campaign in a few key swing states. My sources all had different perspectives on the Electoral College and this has changed my thinking on the subject. Before I was sure that switching to a popular vote system was the best method moving forward to determining the presidency. However I am now seeing the other side to this argument. I don't think my research question needs changed however. Instead I am going to start looking for evidence that shows that a nationwide popular vote could sway in any direction wither republican, democrat or third party, and that it is the fairest way to determine who the president will be. 
