It is said, the electoral college never actually functioned in the way the writers of the Constitution intended. It did although help with the basis of the process. It was left open for things to be able to be changed. When the United States changed, the electoral college did as well. Until the nineteenth century, the electors were chosen from people already in a legislative position. During the nineteenth century, however, with more being able to vote, citizens had a chance to become electors. Although it is mostly citizens, states still have some say into who the electors should be (Electoral College). Two disadvantages of the electoral college today include, “violates the one person, one vote rule, which should be the proper rule of a modern democracy, because the addition of two electors to each state for its senators produces significant distortions in how much our individual vote is worth from state to state.” The other reason is that candidates only care about the battleground states. Candidates market only to the states which matter, will make an impact, or have divided social classes (Goldman …show more content…
They are non- party based reasons, they support neither conservatives or liberals. Five of these reasons include, no fighting over the popular vote. It is more likely for a winner to be known through the electoral vote. To win the electoral vote, the candidate has to be liked throughout the country. He can not be liked in just one area of the country. Voters in battleground states listen to the argument of both parties. They do not focus as much on the states heavily supporting a certain party. The electoral college, helps balance the influence of large states, meaning states with a large population. It helps when neither candidate receives the popular vote, for example, Clinton in 1992 and Nixon in 1964 (Posner 2012) and Jefferson in 1800 (Ginsberg