Should the electoral college be abolished?
No, the electoral college ensures representation of the whole country instead of just major cities
If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily populated areas or specific regions. By providing clear and decisive victories, the Electoral College contributes to political stability. It encourages a two-party system and rewards candidates who have broad, nationwide support. The Electoral College recognizes the importance of states in the American federal system. As a federation, the balance of power is important between the national and state governments. The Electoral College preserves this balance by ensuring that the states have a role in electing the president. If the president was elected by popular vote, any issue (like voter fraud or counting errors) could potentially require a national recount. In the Electoral College system, any problems are isolated to individual states. The Electoral College has been an important part of American democracy for over 200 years. Changing it would mean altering a system that has been part of American history and tradition.
@VulcanMan6 6mos6MO
These are terrible arguments.
First of all, ANY national voting system "ensures that all parts of the country are involved" because any system that involves the entire country fundamentally does that, not just the Electoral College; a popular vote system would also "ensure that all parts of the country are involved", so that argument doesn't even make sense, much less in the Electoral College's favor.
Secondly, the Electoral College already limits campaigning to specific regions: swing states. That's why current campaigners can effectively ignore any states that always vote for the same party, and instead focus on just the states that they have a chance of flipping (which is why they're also called "battleground states", because those are the states where candidates fight over). A voting system withoutRead more
