Should the United States Continue to Use the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Date
Course
Should the United States Continue to Use the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?
Every four years, the United States of American citizens either troop to polling stations or use online platforms to participate in presidential elections. During such elections, registered voters vote for presidential contenders alongside their running mates, who are usually nominated during their respective party’s national convention (USA.gov par. 2). Unlike the rest of the world, the eventual winner of any presidential contest in the United States entirely depends on the electoral college votes, which was established in 1788 by Article 2 of the constitution (ProCon.org par. 3). This means that a presidential candidate can lose the popular vote and still become the president after triumphing in the collegiate race. In essence, when Americans cast their ballots, they do not directly vote for the president but for ''college electors'', who ultimately select the president (Law par. 3). The latest benefactor of the Electoral College votes was Donald Trump. Despite trailing in the popular vote against Hillary Clinton, he won the presidency courtesy of the college votes (National Archives par. 1). Since a candidate preferred by the masses fails to clinch the presidency, there has been a heated debate on whether the electoral college process is still viable in the United States. For some plausible reasons, the country should deviate from using the electoral college process in presidential elections and adopt the popular vote system.
One of the reasons why the United States should do away with the electoral college voting system is that it gives too much power to swing states. These refer to battlegrounds where either the Democratic or the Republican Party has a realistic chance of winning in the presidential elections. Since they have the potential of swinging the vote either way, the main political parties channel a disproportionate amount of time and resources into them (Federal Election Commission par. 1). That places such states on a pedestal, providing them with more power over other states. In essence, it means that a handful of states can decide on a presidential contest without actually getting concerned about the popular vote (ProCon.org par. 11). For instance, the state of California can easily win the presidential seat for the Democratic Party while the same holds for the Republican Party in the state of Indiana. That being the case, those swing states end up having more political clout than the other states, thereby receiving more attention from the powers that be in a bid to retain their dominance. This grates against the very principles of democracy where all citizens, regardless of their states of origin, are entitled to equal treatment and opportunities.
The other principal reason the United States of America should scrap th...