Argumentative Essay: One Man, One Vote

“One man, one vote”, a phrase and a principle that is the foundation of any great democracy. The U.S has adopted this principle in the form of universal suffrage for all of it citizens and symbolizes the country’s unity and equality. However, every four years in the month of November in the presidential election when one individual is chosen to lead the nation, one would expect for the winner of the election to be the will of the people, but unfortunately that’s not the case. In the most important election in the entire country, a separate institution, the Electoral College, makes the final vote on who will become president. Although intended to be a reflection of the popular vote, the methodology in which it is practice is flawed and leaves plenty room for error. Similar to a direct election, the Electoral College still requires a popular vote; however, instead of stopping there, adds several steps that only give misleading results. The Electoral College is a recipe for disaster that does nothing to promote democracy nor equality in voting. Ever since the early history of the United States, the Electoral College has been the means of electing the president. So one might ask why get rid of it now? After all some say “it works- most of the time without a hitch” yet we still had the problems such as in the 2000 election where 3 counties demanded recounts (Jost 2000). Other supporters of the Electoral College argue that it allows “balance federalism”, and is even credited for preserving the two party system we have in our nation (McCollester 2007). Yet even if a presidential candidate achieves the majority vote in electoral votes, there have been “17 instances” in which “the president takes office with less than the majority of the popular vote” (Jost 2000). Alternatively, a direct election based entirely on popular vote is also heavily criticized by supporters of the electoral system. The worry lies that in popular vote “would replicate on a national level the current vote-counting controversy in Florida” and say a “direct election is not feasible today” (Jost 2000). Many who are against the electoral system agree that “a direct election system would not necessarily make elections cleaner and quicker” however; it’s still a “much more convincing statement than a vote from the Electoral College” (Jost 2000). Trading the electoral system for a direct-election may make the voting process easier but it will get rid of the source of misrepresentation inequalities in voting. One fault of the Electoral College that leads to misrepresentation lies within the winner take all system add-on vote that serve to bolster the winning candidates score. One of the so called advantages of the Electoral College is rooted in this system in which it promises a decisive victory for a candidate. The numbers in previous elections would lead most to believe it’s true but that due …show more content…
Because the Electoral College looks at the states rather the people in them, it is dependent on the representing states based on their representation in congress. However, this gives each state a minimum worth of 3 electoral vote which gives larger representation to small states while giving larger states less. For example, take the state with largest population versus the smallest “California get one electoral vote per 615,818 residents while Wyoming receives one vote per 164,594 residents” (Bolinger 2007). The single vote person has difference of about a factor of 4 in value, a problem that would not exist in a direct election. A study by Lawrence D Longley found variations in voting power between states when operating under an Electoral College but none in a direct election (Longley 1984). So at the very core, the voices of the people in the Electoral College system aren’t even equal because the country insists that states are more important than the people.
Ultimately the Electoral College is built on principles that by no mean promote democracy, and only serve to make the election results more convoluted and inaccurate. The abolishing the electoral college doesn’t just have the immediate result of making election more accurate but would to lead to more voting” (Cebula 1980). Elections should stop at the popular vote which more than fair representation of the decision of the people, the is no need to have a Rube Goldberg machine of an electoral