Why the Electoral College should be abolished?
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,” said Donald Trump. In United States voting history, five candidates won the popular vote and didn’t win the electoral college (EC). Despite the necessity of an EC system at the beginning of the United States, the EC should now be abolished as a flawed system that has produced significant negative consequences, namely low voter turnout, and the inability of third party candidates to run a successful campaign. In its place, there should be a Rank Choice Voting system.
The current voting system discourages turnout because people feel that they will “waste” their vote when they feel that they are neglected by the Presidential nominees. For example, the Democratic candidate will not campaign in safe blue states like Vermont, instead they will focus on swing states. If people dislike the two major parties' candidates then why waste a vote? A similar phenomenon occurred in 2016 because not many people were fond of Secretary Clinton and Businessman Trump. People thought both candidates were underwhelming, and this was especially true for supporters of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primaries. When Bernie lost to Clinton during the primary season, many of his supporters sat out the election.
Furthermore, the EC discourages third party candidates from running for the Presidency because of the spoiler issue. In the 2000 presidential election a minor candidate, Ralph Nader, took just enough votes from Vice President Gore which made him lose the state of Florida and the General Election. This system prevents more than two candidates from running because if too many major contenders enter the General Election, there may not be enough electoral votes to meet the minimum threshold of half of the electoral votes. This scenario happened during the 1824 presidential election where four major candidates ran and there were not enough votes in the EC to decide the victor. Congress then must break the tie, but often corrupt bargains occur.
To replace this substandard system, the proposition of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is an appealing solution. RCV allows the voter to rank the several candidates on a ballot from their first choice to their second choice and so forth. This no longer shackles other candidates from different parties running for the office because RCV prevents both the spoiler effect and ties from happening due to it having Instant Run-offs. If the voter’s first choice doesn’t win their vote will move to the next round where that same vote will be transferred to the second choice and break the tie. The states of Maine and Alaska have already adopted this same system.
The EC has run its course in United States history, and now it causes shades of disenfranchisement, with problems such as low voter turnout and the inability of third parties to run successful campaigns. The RCV system is the appropriate replacement that Alaska, Maine, and several other American cities and foreign countries utilize for a greater democratic effect. In 2016, Bernie supporters would have chosen Clinton as a second choice. The outcome would have been a Clinton victory, and the bizarre four years would have been avoided. Longer term, the RCV would engage the populace more fully, allowing for new parties to flourish and for the expressions of ideas not exactly mainstream, while promoting a healthier democracy that had a safety valve of a second safe choice to be listed by votes.