Over the years, the U.S. Presidential Election is decided by a pool of representatives drawn from the 52 states in the country. Even though the popular vote might favor a certain candidate, the decision can be overruled by the team of representatives who wield more power than the people. From this realization, democracy becomes a myth when the voice of the people is overruled by a minority group, which might not understand the changing needs of individuals in their immediate environment. Historically, the electoral college was established to prevent a scenario where uninformed electorates could propel a narrative that hinders the state from realizing its desired objectives. However, individual access to information has significantly improved over the years because of the emergence of the internet and other technological innovations that facilitate the communication experience. For this reason, the electoral college should be abolished because its functions have become irrelevant, it equips swing states with immense power, and assumes the will of the people.
When America’s founding fathers created the electoral college, they were inspired by the need to create a system that works for the people. On many occasions, the public might not access the right information about numerous policies and processes that dictate the nature of operations in their immediate environment. From this perspective, the electoral college would prevent the U.S. from being led by individuals motivated by selfish interests. By ensuring the people would make informed decision, the electoral college would perform the checks and balances that promote growth and development in the developed nation (Bugh). However, the functions are no longer tenable because of the availability of information and other crucial aspects of information that dictate the nature of operations in a government setting.
In the U.S., swing states dictate the outcomes of the election because of their role in the electoral process. From this realization, candidates ignore other states as they direct their focus towards the swing states, which exposes individuals to a challenging environment. Importantly, different states have valid concerns that should be addressed by the candidates and discuss the best way to develop policies that expose them to various economic opportunities (Amar 63). In this regard, understanding the changing needs of individuals becomes a problem because of the inability of Presidential candidates seeking the voice of individuals in the swing states at the expense of other states in the country.
The electoral college ignores the will of the people by making independent decisions that conflict the electoral outcome. In this case, individuals expect their will to reflect in the election outcome because of their belief in certain candidates. When Donald Trump was approved by the electoral college instead of Hillary Clinton, who had won the popular vote, the public called for the abolishment of the electoral college because of its inability to uphold their decision. From this realization, the approach that should have been taken was side-lined and instead, the electoral college adopted a different outcome because of their desire to accomplish the expected goals and objectives.
The electoral college should be abolished because its functions have become irrelevant, it equips swing states with immense power, and assumes the will of the people. Adopting this decision promotes democracy and exposes individuals to an enabling environment where they can make decisions that solve problems affecting their way of life. Likewise, the electoral college has become irrelevant in the fast-changing political landscape where people can readily access information and make independent decisions that respond to issues taking place in their immediate environment.
Works Cited
Bugh, Gary, ed. Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge, 2016.
Amar, Akhil Reed. “The Inaugural Abraham Lincoln Lecture on Constitutional Law: Electoral College Reform, Lincoln-Style.” Nw. UL Rev. 112 (2017): 63.
