The time has come for the electoral college to go. The will of the majority should be served in a majority-rule system. Though, in most elections, the electoral college chooses the candidate with the most votes, as we saw in 2000, this is not always the case. And in this day and age, if the system is to have any validity, it must be.

The main argument for needing the electoral college is the protection of small states which would otherwise be ignored in a national campaign. This argument carried more weight in years past than it does today. Now, the electoral college does not protect small states. It protects swing states. There are solid blue states and solid red states, and then there are a number of swing states that have been the deciding factor in the last several elections.

Ironically, the elimination of the electoral college may protect the smaller states in that candidates from either party would not write off red or blue states and would spend more time in those states because there are voters there. In each state, regardless of how it generally leans (red or blue), there are undecided voters, independent voters, and intermittent voters.

Scrapping the electoral college would allow candidates to share a more broad, national vision or message. Candidates would not have to pander (as much) to local or state interests and could carry their vision all across the nation.

The deepest ideals of this country are rooted in opportunity and that anyone can grow up and become president, not as Al Gore said at the 2004 Democratic Convention: "...I know from my own experience that America is a land of opportunity where every little boy or girl has a chance to grow up and win the popular vote."

Learn more about this author, Matthew Spearman.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Arguments against the Electoral College in US politics?
We want to hear your view. Write now!