Use of Electoral College in Presidential Elections

America operates under a democratic system where the public directly chooses government representatives and members of the Electoral College. However, the president is the only exception regarding direct democracy since he is not elected directly. The strategy implies that the state is an essential subsidiary unit of the government. The state controls a substantial amount of the law, finances, and administration, which are critical for its development. It maintains a unique culture and identity regardless of the nature of the economy. When the state decides on its ideal president on the principle of one man, one vote, all votes in each state should be considered equal (Posner et al. Therefore, Americans should consider the majority rule approach when choosing their president.

Another reason why the Electoral College should not be used in a presidential election is attributed to the fact that the particular system does not represent the states efficiently. It does not show the need to serve territories that constitute the majority of voters. In as much as it seems that America is a democratic society, the system does not treat everyone equal. The outdated and inaccurate model would only lead to the use of the representative number of votes to determine election results. Therefore, using the Electoral College infer undermining the public’s right to choose the ideal leader. Importantly, the use of Electoral College would imply that the constitution is no longer critical in guiding the state. The emphasis of "We the People" that is found in the constitution applies differently when the Electoral College is brought in to the picture.

Instead of respecting the voice of the majority, the Electoral College would work by the demands of the elite politicians (Fishkin et al. Furthermore, rules governing the electoral process as illustrated in the constitutions acknowledge the majority leader to be the ideal leader. Thus, the president should be selected based on the majority vote since it would be ridiculous for a leader who gets the majority of the popular votes to lose the elections in the end. For example, the recent presidential election shows the unrealistic nature of the Electoral College. It became evident that Hillary Clinton acquired most of the popular votes than her contestant Donald Trump, and yet she lost the presidential seat (Amar et al. Although the Electoral College seeks to protect the interests of smaller states, it would be unfair if the election favors smaller states with fewer voters without factoring the vital role played by big states.

Pro Side of the Argument The Electoral College is the ideal way to go about the presidential election since popular votes only mean mob-rule. The idea of mob psychology may apply well in situations of presidential elections. In such cases, people tend to act by the majority will, which determines their decision to vote for a particular candidate (Posner et al. It is normal to find someone shifting his/her focus from his initial candidate to the other candidate towards the end of the campaign or voting process with the move attributed to what he/she hears about them or even as a result of being influenced by those around him/her. In other words, it would mean that the voted candidate was not voted out of his/her leadership qualities but out of what the voter has heard about him including the environment surrounding the voter.

S. therefore, overlooking the needs of some imply that they are not that important in deciding the course that the state should take. It is critical to balance the desire of every state about its needs, contribution, and so on. Thus, small states should be given equal attention as large states are. The Electoral College is an essential element that enhances national unity. Referring to Amar et al. argument, the Electoral College seeks to ensure that each state is given a chance to take part in deciding the election of the president (67). Thus, giving them the opportunity is the most that the electoral system could do. Furthermore, the millions of voters from small states do not determine the election results. Instead, the majority, as in the case of Trump’s presidency determines the results.