The electoral college system

The Electoral College System
Americans and the world at large were desperately waiting to know the next man who would occupy the white house. After Americans voted wisely and peacefully, they still waited for more days to know who their president would be. The delay of the results was not voters’ problem but the systems put in place. Most Americans went to sleep knowing that Al Gore had won the presidency on the night of November 7, 2000. This essay tries to figure out the effects of Electoral College System.
Although Americans vote, the popularity of their vote may not be reflected in the outcome of who become the president and the vice president of the USA. The existence of Electoral College Vote system has ensured that only candidates who win the majority Electoral College votes ascend to power. The Electoral College vote system comprises of 538 electors who determine the occupant of the white house. The presidency of the USA is won by whoever gets 270 of the electors’ votes. Electoral College votes vary in different states and the winner of a state’s majority votes wins all the college electoral votes of that particular state.
In Bush vs Al Gore case, Al Gore had won in the popular votes, but there was a fierce disagreement of who won the Florida state. Florida State was to decide the winning candidate in terms of electoral votes. Bush won the majority votes in Florida by being declared popular vote winner in that state. This case was later taken to the Florida court, which ordered a recount, but there was a problem on the method to be used in recounting. However, the case was later taken to the US Supreme Court, which nullified the recount process and later made unsatisfactory decision the ultimate winner was George W. Bush. Considering that even the US Supreme Court justices were divided on this matter, it is unclear whether the decision made was political or was strictly based on judicial grounds. Thanks to Al Gore who conceded defeat having realized that based on the supreme court decision, he only managed 266 electoral votes against Bush’s 271 (Baker 1-3).
The Electoral College system is believed to be catering for the minority and special group interests. A candidate must consider these groups since their votes may be a determinant in winning a particular state’s popular votes hence college electoral votes. In addition, the college electoral votes promotes political stability by allowing only two major parties to exist and suppressing the emergence of other small parties that may hinder quick decision making by the voters (Baker 2-4). Moreover, the college electoral vote system ensures that the president enjoys sufficient and well-distributed support in governance. The college electoral vote system reduces the chances of election conflict between the two major parties hence ease decision-making process.
However, the college electoral vote system is undemocratic since the majority decision is not taken into consideration. Most states have their clear favorites such as the blue states and the red states hence less attention paid to such states. The candidates mostly concentrate their campaigns in undecided states. There is great hindrance of third party, which may be having better policies than the two major parties but fears competition in the college electoral vote system. The system also discourages voters from voting especially in the states with clear favorites. I would suggest that the majority should always carry the day by scrapping the college electoral vote system and allowing democratic system to prevail (Baker 2-5).
Corporations and unions are not hindered from spending money on their interested candidates. This was a court ruling on the Citizens United case. Money tends to enhance mobility of politicians thus popularizing them. However, the effect of money is not great considering that most states have clear favorites.
Works Cited
Baker, G. ” Gore Defies the Pundits to Win Popular Vote: Bush was Expected to Win most Votes in the Country and Lose in the Electoral College. But the Reverse may be True.” Financial Times. 2000. Print.