If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. It’s certainly no surprise that the Electoral College vs. popular vote controversy has sparked considerable debate. As the issue surfaces heading into November, is it time to graduate from the Founding Father's Electoral College concept, or are popularity contests no way to choose a president?
The fact is, the losses would far ought weigh the gains from changing how we elected our presidents.
The Electoral College moderates and stabilizes American politics. It forces presidential candidates to appeal to the most politically balanced states rather than simply “preaching to the choir” where they have strong support. Campaigns depend on building large coalitions that transcend their political base, spending time and resources in a group of “battleground states” that represent America’s moderate middle rather than the ideological extremes. These key states change over time and are remarkably diverse—in 2004, battlegrounds included Florida, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.
A national popular vote scheme would enhance the power of big cities at the expense of small town America. Campaigning in metropolitan areas is already less expensive, but without the Electoral College, candidates would be foolish to venture beyond the suburbs.
Next Argument
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Expert Verified
