How Democratic is The Constitution and is There a Need for The Removal of The Electoral College

The constitution certainly created and helps to uphold a democratic nation. It outlines and set in place a particular democratic government and set of laws. The men who wrote the Constitution were not elected. Certainly there were great leaders, but there were no formal election processes in place in order to select them to write the document. The Constitution was written behind the closed door and signed by the authors. It was not voted on in the same way as the laws and bills are voted on today. The people of the newly forming American nation did not have the same ability to offer input and make a selection that we enjoy today. With this, it could be argued in a way that this was notably undemocratic. Should the winning presidential nominees win by the popular votes and not by electoral votes? For that reason, the winning presidential candidates should be represented by the electors.

As the framer of this country, the presidential nominee’s is chosen by Electoral College. The Electoral College are a group of people who appointed by each state, who will formally elect the president and vice-president of the country. And these electors are selected by the population of the states, which is why some states have more representatives. The Electoral College system opens up the Pandora's Box of electors not voting as instructed to by the American people. The Electoral College critically misinterprets the equal representatives from each state. Not only there is a possible chance that the presidential candidates to win by popular votes, but he/she would not win during the election. For instance, during the election in 2000, during the presidential election, the republican nominee won the election, even he lost the popular. With the Electoral College, this situation has become very probable. The presidential candidates that won by Electoral College were unfair with representation of the voters in the country (Dahl). He also went on and gives an example of how a vote in Wyoming is worth about four times as much as a vote from California (Dahl). In fact, bills proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College are routinely introduced in every Congress (William). If presidential candidates are won by Electoral College and lost in popular votes, does people votes really matter?

Do the people votes really matter, when The Electoral College should be removed and the system should be the popular vote? With the Electoral College, the electors would not know if their votes count or not. They are not the one who elected the president candidates, even if their name is on the ballot. With the way that Electoral College set up, they might even vote your candidates choice or they might elect someone that does not represent you. Where the electors lived may make their vote useless because of their state population. There will be the time that presidential candidates will be the tie and that is when the popular vote comes in. If this situation really happens then the House of Representation and the Senate has the power to elect the president (Ginsberg). As Dahl states, in order to make Electoral College represent the electors, that the “the Electoral College will abolish in favor of a direct election by popular vote would be highly desirable” (Dahl). With the way Electoral College present whose get to elect the president, the question rise is that should we, as the citizens alter the Electoral College?

Should the Electoral College be altered or abolish from the election? As this research paper states above, that the Electoral College has an unfair representative in elect the president of the country. By having a presidential nominee’s win the election by the Electoral College, which means that the winning candidate does not represent the electors at all. If we alter or even abolished Electoral College, the candidate who will win the election will represent the electors in the country. But at the same time, by using alter or even abolish the Electoral College, it will create a bigger problem in the senate. If the Electoral College is altered the bigger states have more advantages than the smaller states. With this, the smaller states will need and entitled to protect by the large states (Dahl). Since altering or abolishing the Electoral College would not work, what can the electors do to have someone in the office will represent them? According to Dahl, there two solutions that make Electoral College more representative to the elector. One is that if no candidate received a majority, a run-off between the two top candidates should be held. And another one is to distributing vote to candidates proportionally (Dahl). For instance, if the Electoral College is abolish and the presidential candidate is elected by popular vote. What will be the outcome?