In the United States, a President is chosen by a body known as the Electoral College. Under this system, each state is allotted a specific number of electors, typically selected by the state party organizations of the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. The number of electors allotted to each state corresponds to the number of congressional representatives and senators.
Winner-take-all or proportional
Winner-take-all voting systems are currently in use in most states, where the candidate who receives the most votes in a state’s popular vote also receives all of that state’s electoral votes. For instance, if a candidate receives 55 percent of the popular vote in a state with 10 electoral votes, he or she would win all 10 electoral votes.
“Proportional representation” is an alternative to the current “winner-take-all” system, in which a candidate’s share of electoral votes is determined by their share of the popular vote. In a state with 10 electoral votes, for instance, a candidate receiving 55 percent of the popular vote would be awarded 5.5 of those votes.
Some benefits of a winner-take-all format are:
- The process is straightforward, making it simple to comprehend and tally the votes.
- It gives voters an incentive to vote because their vote will significantly impact states where the election is closely contested.
- When used correctly, the winner-take-all voting system can yield an unambiguous victor with a sizable majority, guaranteeing continuity and predictability in government.
- Because it is more difficult for third-party candidates to gain traction, a two-party system is more likely to be maintained under a winner-take-all electoral system.
The disadvantages of a winner-take-all structure are:
- It is possible for a candidate to win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, as was the case in both the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016. This indicates that the electoral vote may not appear to reflect the people’s will.
- The winner-takes-all system discourages third-party candidates because they are unlikely to win any electoral votes, making it more difficult for them to gain traction in a presidential campaign.
- Voter turnout could be lower in states where the outcome is already known because citizens may not feel their vote matters.
- As candidates may not be incentivized to court voters who do not support the majority party, candidates who hold unpopular views may be pushed to the sidelines under a winner-take-all system.
Proportional representation has advantages such as:
- It would be a more precise representation of the will of the people, as a candidate’s percentage of the electoral vote would more closely parallel their percentage of the popular vote.
- Third-party candidates are more likely to be elected with a proportional representation system. This gives voters a more comprehensive range of choices.
- Minority perspectives are more likely to be heard and considered in the political process when candidates are incentivized to reach out to a broader swath of voters.
- Because parties will need to win over voters from more demographic groups to increase their electoral vote totals, the candidates who represent them are more likely to be broadly representative and diverse. This can lead to a more representative government, with a greater diversity of viewpoints and experiences represented in the legislature. By doing so, we can make decisions and implement policies that are more representative of the population as a whole.
Some of the problems with the proportional voting system are as follows:
- Vote tallying and determination of a victor would be more difficult.
- Reduces voter turnout by making people feel like their vote doesn’t matter as much if the election’s outcome is already apparent in their state.
- Voters may have more trouble getting involved in the political process because of its complexity and unfamiliarity.
- The proportional representation system may produce less certainty in the political process, as it may be more challenging to identify a clear winner.
- It can result in the establishment of multiple parties, which may result in unstable coalitions and governments.
Fraud concerns
Since a small number of fraudulent votes in a closely contested state could potentially swing the outcome, the winner-take-all system may make it easier to commit fraud on a statewide level; on the other hand, a proportional representation system would make it harder to commit widespread fraud because the winner would need to secure a sizable share of the popular vote in several different states.
So which is better?
In conclusion, both the winner-take-all and the proportional representation systems have good and bad points. Although the winner-take-all system is easy to understand and popular with voters, it does not fairly represent the will of the people and often discourages third-party candidates. The proportional representation system is more fair, but it’s also more complicated and could reduce voter participation.
I think the positive aspects of the proportional representation system more than make up for the drawbacks of using it. In spite of the added complexity, the benefits of better representation for all parties, reduced opportunities for fraud, and a more accurate reflection of the people’s will, as expressed in the vote, will more than outweigh the drawbacks. It’s a shame that we’ve become a country that is easily corrupted and only offers voters a few options. I also believe it is ridiculously simple to commit election fraud under our current system, as it is not difficult to “correct” a close election by adding fraudulent votes. It is imperative that we institute measures to ensure that qualified candidates are elected to political office.
Bring the electoral college to all elections
To ensure that all parts of the country are heard and considered, proponents of the Electoral College system argue that it should be used in all federal, state, and local elections. The Electoral College system allocates electoral votes to states based on population; consequently, regions with smaller populations have a proportionally more significant impact on the election outcome. As a result, people living in rural areas and other sparsely populated areas can rest assured that their voices will be heard.
The Electoral College system helps ensure that densely populated areas don’t unfairly dominate the voting process. A direct popular vote system could lead to candidates neglecting rural and smaller cities and favoring the more populous urban centers. Candidates are incentivized to run their campaigns on a broader variety of geographic areas thanks to the Electoral College, which enables a more comprehensive and accurate representation of the region’s wide range of interests.
Furthermore, the Electoral College system can deter third-party candidates from running and reduce the viability of a candidate’s chances of victory without widespread regional support. It requires candidates to build a coalition of supporters across multiple regions instead of focusing solely on winning a majority in densely populated areas.
It’s essential to keep in mind that switching to the Electoral College system for state and local elections would necessitate a major shift in the political system as it stands and that any resulting changes should be thoroughly considered however, this may help to guarantee that all areas and communities are included in the political process and that candidates enjoy widespread support in the area that the election represents.
Therefore, the Electoral College system should be implemented for all future elections. It’s a shame that we only use this voting method once every four years because it’s so effective at ensuring that all regions, not just the most populous ones, are represented in government. It will be challenging to implement at first because we will need to determine areas for each election and the number of electoral college votes that each area will be allotted; however, I believe that if we start with all statewide elections and designate each county or district as the representing areas, we can implement this change with relative ease. Local elections, such as those held in cities, counties, and districts, will be more brutal to organize, but if statewide elections are widely seen as successful, it will be easier to rally support for the difficult change.