SHOULD THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BE REFORMED?

• SMALL STATES ARE OVER REPRESENTED

• WINNER TAKES ALL SYSTEM DISTORTS RESULT

• UNFAIR TO NATIONAL THIRD PARTIES
• RISK OF ROGUE ELECTORS
• PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF DIFFERENT PARTIES

• SMALL STATES ARE OVER REPRESENTED

2012

CALIFORNIA - 55 ECV's - 37mn people - 1 vote per 675,000 people

WYOMING - 3 ECV's - 0.6mn people - 1 vote per 185,000 people

• A persons vote in wyoming counts more than a persons vote in california
• THIS IS NOT A STRONG ARGUMENT!!

• THE WINNER TAKES ALL SYSTEM DISTORTS THE RESULT 
• with this system a candidate can win the ECV but lose the popular vote - making the less favoured candidate president
• 2000 - G.W.Bush won ECV (271) but lost the popular vote. (AG 48.4% - GWB 48%)
• 2016 - Donald Trump won ECV (306) but lost popular vote.

• UNFAIR TO NATIONAL 3RD PARTIES
• Current system uses plurality not absolute majority
• WTA means 3rd and independant parties get no ECVs even if they have a significant amount of votes in their state, they would have to get majority.
• 1992- Ros Perot (independant) won 18.9% of popular vote but failed to win a single ECV 

THE RISK OF FAITHLESS ELECTORS

• Faithless voters are members of the EC  who dont vote for their states desired candidate or dont vote at all
• decreases reliability of EC sysytem 
• Minnesota 2004 - unknown faithless voter
• to decrease the risk 29 states have implemented laws compelling them to vote for the right one ie Minnesota, Michigan and District of Columbia
• 21 states still dont have these laws
• EC is unreliable in this aspect
• in 2000 - a Washington DC elector refused to cast her ECV for Al Gore in protest to the cities lack of congressional representation

SAFE AND SWING STATES

• safe states like Arizona (Rep) and California (Dem) have almost always voted the same way and so a dems vote in Arizona is basically worthless, as would a Reps be in California.
• in swing states, like Florida, the states party changes each election cycle depending on the candidate, and so a dems or a reps vote in a swing state is marginally more significant than it would be in a safe state 
• in ECV process, an individuals vote is only as valuable as its ability to influence the majority vote of a state
• candidates are also way more likely to visit a swing state than a safe state
• if US used national vote, all votes would be equally significant.

• PRESERVES THE VOICE OF SMALL POPULATION STATES

• PROMOTES TWO HORSE RACE

• USUALLY WORKS

• STOOD TEST OF TIME

ASSURES THAT THE VOICES OF SMALLER STATES ARENT OVERLOOKED

• ECV allows states with a smaller population to have an queal influence on the election
• Wyoming is very small and would likely be ignored if only using national vote
• candidates are more likely to visits the smaller states as even states with a minimum of 3 ECVs will help push that candidate closer to 270

TENDS TO PROMOTE A TWO-HORSE RACE

• most of the time the winner will win over 50% of the vote 
  
• more legitimacy
• allowing for national unity
• providing a relatively stable government

STOOD THE TEST OF TIME

• it has been around since the 1880's and have proved affective with few major errors so why would we need to change it?

POSSIBLE REFORMS:

• minor reforms would be relatively easy to implement
• major reforms - requiring a constituional amendment - would be much more difficult to pass - unlikely
• Dems and Reps wouldnt want to reform as they are always ones in power 
• MAINE SYSTEM 
• AUTOMATIC PLAN
• DIRECT ELECTION PLAN
• ALLOCATION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN EACH STATE IN PROPORTION TO POPULAR VOTE

• 1 vote for each congressional district (states are divided up into districts)
• 2 votes for winning the whole state
• in 2008, Nebraska, which also uses this system, split its five ECVs - one to Obama and the other 4 to McCain 
• McCain had 2 congressional districts and therefore got 2 senators

- results would only be marginally different

- could lead to a less proportionate result

• FAIRER to national third parties
• could encourage more people to vote for 3rd parties making it more likely that no candidate would gain an absolute majority. 
• legitimacy? 
• political unity?

• the plan seeks only to deal with faithless voters
• get rid of electors and make the allocation of ECVs purely automatic

• opinion polls to show that Americans would support a move to a direct election
• unlikely that the small population states would give up their influence 

• A number of states have joined together to form an 'interstate compact'
• all agreed to give their ECVs to the winner of the popular vote once there are enough states taking part to get to 270 in order to ensure that the winner of the popular vote becomes president 
• avoiding 2000 and 2016 recurruring
• easier than passing a constitutional amendment
• states are allowed to do this as there are no rules on how they should allocate their ECVs