Previously, I had created a discussion post about my opinion on this topic. I stated that I do think we should get rid of the electoral college and look into alternatives such as the rank system based on the popular vote. For this discussion post, I decided to look at the other side of this discussion to see if I am truly right in my position. The article I looked at cited 5 different reasons as to why the electoral college is good. The 5 arguments were that it would maintain federalism, maintain a slow but steady government, force candidates to campaign everywhere, make outcomes of the election clear, and that the popular vote is not what the founding fathers intended. Seeing these arguments only helped me solidify my own rather than change them. For example, one of the arguments that caught my attention is that it would force candidates to campaign nationally. They said, “It is impossible for the leader in electoral votes to win enough states in one region to capture the presidency. Voters in different regions don’t need to worry that a candidate who only speaks to a small group of states will be their nation’s head of state.” While it is true that it is impossible to only capture one area of the country to win, the electoral college allows and somewhat forces candidates to campaign in swing states because by winning those few states they win the presidency. A popular vote would actually force candidates to campaign in every state because each voter counts and so candidates would have to campaign everywhere which would allow them to hear each person/state’s concerns and therefore represent their interests better. From what I have seen from the other side’s argument on this topic via this article, there is no reason to not replace the Electoral College.
For the full article and more of my comments go to: https://nowcomment.com/documents/235949