Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?

Recommend (2) Comments (1)

No election system can completely eliminate the element of human error or the tendency of some dishonest individuals to cheat. An election system can, however, minimize the extent to which these human errors and fraudulent behavior impact elections. The Electoral College defends against fraudulent behavior and human error in two ways: First, the system makes it difficult to predict where stolen votes will make a difference. In a direct election system, any stolen vote matters, but under the Electoral College system, stolen votes impact the election only if they are stolen in the right location. Second, to the degree that fraud and errors do occur, the Electoral College makes it possible to isolate the problem to one or a handful of states.

The 2000 election provides an excellent example of the Electoral College in action. Yes, several hundred stolen votes in Florida would have changed the election. But stealing these votes would have required knowing in advance that such a small number of votes in that particular state could swing the outcome of the election. Even if someone had successfully guessed that a handful of votes in Florida would change the election, surely this guess would have been the exception, rather than the rule. Moreover, the Electoral College made it possible for the nation to isolate the problem to Florida. The nation was in suspense for weeks at the end of 2000, waiting to see how the election would come out. However, the situation could have been much worse. Recounts could have ensued in virtually every state of the Union; instead, the focus was on a handful of counties in Florida. Under a direct election scheme, a national recount (complete with lawsuits in many states, not just Florida) could easily have occurred and left the country in suspense for months.