Introduction
One of the most important parts of the American Constitution is the Electoral College. This is an important institution in the country’s politics and governance, as it involves the selection of key government officials, particularly the President. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College. In order to elect an American President into office, a threshold of 270 electoral votes has been set (National Archives and Records Administration, 2016). This essay seeks to examine the functions of the Electoral College and the proposed changes to it as discussed by articles by Gregg (2011) and Underhill (2012).
Position on the current Electoral College
The current Electoral College has a lot of issues. This has elicited all manner of questions from critics, some of whom have put up a spirited campaign to have this noble institution, which was developed by our founding father, er scrapped (Gregg, 2011). Despite this opposition to the Electoral College, it is important to appreciate that even as it may be bedeviled with varied issues, it remains one of the key American institutions that undertakes its activities in keeping with the constitutional processes (Burgan, 2007). It can be seen, some think that the Electoral College is what has given shape to American Politics. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out directly. While the various issues may be combated in a constitutional manner, it has to be done within the lines of the constitution. The issues that are arising in this situation are the ones where the activities are, in fact, unconstitutional.
While we may be against the current Electoral College, we cannot be against the basic ideals or the very basic idea related to it. As a result, we cannot be completely against the entire Electoral College (LeVert, 2004). For instance, while the issues of corruption are present, we have to understand that the structure or ideals of the Electoral College do not allow for such activities. Considering things in such a manner, the very activities that are being carried out in the name of the Electoral College are unconstitutional in the first place. As a result, we have to combat the entire problem in a constitutional manner.
Position on the proposed changes
The changes that are being suggested in this manner are ones where there will be a division of votes based on various zones, which would pave the way for decentralized power. This system does look promising, as it would tone down the powers to a reasonable amount. Consequently, the idea that the Electoral College would dominate an entire system is misguided. In the proposed system, voters would still have to cast their vote in choosing a candidate of their chosen candidate. Moreover, the winning presidential candidate would also have to garner the most votes cast. Therefore, what needs to be understood here is that the entire idea is not in contravention of the country’s constitution (Scriabine, 2007). At face value, the proposed changes appear to water down the powers of the Electoral College, but the truth is that they are beneficial to the entire country. This hinges on the understanding that dividing votes according to defined zones implies that the candidates, as opposed to concentrating on target vote banks, would also be required to draw their attention to all citizens, since all votes are important for the winning candidate.
Also, those who demanded a change of system have used the constitution itself as a base for their arguments (Hewson & Schlesinger, 2003). Think that the idea of the winner takes all is not in the Constitution at all. The changes in this case would not be unconstitutional but would, in fact, cause the system to be much more in adherence with the Constitution. It is important, therefore, that we agree with the proposed changes.
Should the state bypass the Constitution on this issue?
While the proposed changes are completely in accordance with the constitution, the state has given a hint of circumventing the constitution in this matter. However, we must understand that the Constitution is not something to be taken lightly. The founding fathers had created the Constitution with an utmost understanding of the social fabric of the country (Armstrong & Roth, 2006). Circumventing the Constitution is not something that can be done based on a whimsical conclusion. We must understand that the changes that are being proposed are completely constitutional, and the current system that has given rise to the problems mentioned here is unconstitutional in the first place. Consequently, the state may consider circumventing the constitution in order to gain a solid footing on this matter (Dworkin, 2005). However, the state must not involve such means, as it would take the trust away from the general population. Circumventing the constitution in this case would thus be an act of trying to bring the case in their favor by unjust means. What needs to be understood here is that the state should not evade the Constitution on this issue.
References
Armstrong, J., & Roth, R. (2006). The American story. New York: A.A. Knopf.
Burgan, M. (2007). The electoral college. Minneapolis, MN: Compass Point Books.
Dworkin, R. (2005). Freedom's law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregg, G.L. (2011). Unpopular Vote: The Enemy of the Electoral College aims to scrap the Founders' design. The American Conservative, 33-35.
Hewson, M., & Schlesinger, A. (2003). The Electoral College. Philadelphia: Chelsea House.
LeVert, S. (2004). The Electoral College. New York: Franklin Watts.
National Archives and Records Administration (2016). What is the Electoral College?
Scriabine, C. (2007). The electoral college. Amawalk, N.Y.: Jackdaw Publications.
Underhill, W. (2012). Changing Up the Electoral College? Trends & Transitions, 9.
