1 Answer | Add Yours
There is, of course, no objective answer to this question. There are arguments on both sides that seem compelling to those who believe in them. There is no objective way to determine which is correct.
Those who want to keep the Electoral College generally point to the idea that the system makes individual states more important. This is especially true of many smaller states. If there were no Electoral College, the argument goes, smaller states would be completely ignored in the campaign process. It is also argued that a close election would cause chaos. A nation-wide recount would be a terribly chaotic and controversial thing.
Those who want to get rid of the Electoral College say that it actually causes many states to be ignored. Candidates would not waste their resources campaigning in a place like Utah or Idaho because those states are guaranteed to vote Republican. They don’t even generally bother to campaign much in the biggest state in the Union since it is sure to vote Democrat. If the Electoral College were abolished, there would be more of a point to campaigning in more places.
This comes down to individual preference, then. I believe that the Electoral College is something of a relic of days gone by. However, I do think that the idea of a national recount is something that should make us think twice before abolishing the Electoral College.
We’ve answered 319,420 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question