Post #5 (5/8/17) Unit of Study: Political Beliefs and Behaviors 

Keep the Electoral College or Adopt a More Direct Democracy?

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/16/should-the-electoral-college-be-abolished

For decades the Electoral College has been an issue debated nationally by not only politicians but normal citizens as well with some being for it and some wanting to abandon it. In November of 2016 Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Harvard Professor Charles Fried debated this very topic with Professor Fried arguing for the Electoral College and Professor Amar arguing against the Electoral College. Professor Fried's viewpoint focused on the US has a direct democracy as Senators, representatives, and members of the Electoral College are elected by the people; however, it is important for the President to not be elected directly by the people but through the Electoral College because it allows the states to remain a secondary component of government. To Professor Fried since the states have control over many things that affect the lives of normal citizens and they each have their own little political world it is important for the states and federal government to interact and the Electoral College provides a way for the two government components to do that. Professor Amar had the view that since the states choose their governors, which are basically the states personal Presidents, through direct popular vote with each person getting one vote that the US as a national should elect their President just as the states elect their governors. If the states don't use the Electoral College than some of the claims made against it must be true such as it's unfairness to rural areas and ineffectiveness in recounting is how Professor Amar sees it. He also believes that by having a direct election of the President states would want to encourage voting as voter turnout would effect how much of an impact the state has in the final results, unlike now where the Electoral College votes each state gets is set in stone and unchanging despite voter turnout. Professor Amar recognizes that there are many practical things to take into account such as recounting.

The Electoral College does provide the states a way to be another important layer of the government as well as another layer of checks and balances but it also strips away some of the direct democracy that the US strives for. If America really did want its people's opinions and views to be represented then the Electoral College would not exist and the President would be elected solely by popular vote. If the President was put into office directly by the people then it is likely that they would feel more accountable since they would know that the majority of the nation is expecting them to preform their job effectively and as they promised. Plus as Professor Amar pointed out states would care about their voter turnout because they would want to be represented in the final decision as much as possible. Not only would voter turnout increase due to states encouraging it but voters would feel a higher sense of political efficacy causing them to want to vote. A major drawback of the removing the Electoral College though would be that campaign spending would significantly increase as each person's vote is now equally important therefore, the candidates couldn't just focus on the states with the most electoral votes but maybe the states with the biggest populations. Even focusing on states with big populations candidates would have to visit more states and hold more rallies/conventions than with an Electoral College. This relates to class because it shows how the Electoral College may not be the best thing for the direct democracy that America wants. It also shows that maybe the Constitution is not accurate for all aspects of American at this point in time.