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 shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state. Under the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of closely divided “battleground” states. This means that voters in two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
As for 2008, the New York Times reported that both campaigns have agreed that only 14 states will be battlegrounds in 2008. This means that the issues of concern to voters in three-quarters of the states simply don’t matter to presidential candidates.
Under a national popular vote, every vote is equal and every vote matters, regardless of where it is cast. The votes of Republicans in New York and District of Columbia and the votes of Democrats in Texas and Wyoming would matter. Every vote throughout the United States would be equally important to presidential candidates.
Under a national popular vote, the issues of concern to the three-quarters of the states that are currently ignored would matter to presidential candidates. Presidential candidates would have to address the issues of concern to all voters in New York, District of Columbia, Texas, and Wyoming.
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
Link