The recent presidential election brought to the forefront of the American public's mind the question of whether the Electoral College remains an appropriate method of electing the nation's highest-ranking public official. Although the closeness of this race reminded the general public that they did not have the right to directly elect the president, the debate as to the value of this system, or the question of what is the best method, is not new. In fact, the shortcomings of the Electoral College system have for some time been the subject of academic debate (Abbott). Over the years, the favor, and disfavor, of the Electoral College system has ebbed and flowed with the possibility of an election resulting in no majority winner, due to a viable third party candidate, or the possibility of a president being elected without winning the popular vote. Thus, with the recent election of president Bush, who failed to win the popular vote, yet garnered the 270 Electoral Votes necessary to attain a majority, the debate has again gained momentum as not a purely academic question (Wildvasky).

While the Electoral College system does serve several arguably desirable objectives, it also limit

The Electoral College is deeply rooted in our federalist history and works toward all states, no matter of size, being included in the political process. The system forces candidates for president to campaign throughout the country instead of ignoring smaller states and only seeking to dominate the popular vote in the larger states. In this way, candidates are less inclined to offer deals to large population states at the expense of small population states. Further, one cannot forget that the U.S. is made of several states, each with its own rights. As such, the elimination of the Electoral College system would dilute those rights by erasing state lines contrary to founding principles of the country. Further, while the founding fathers did not envision the two party system, the Electoral College helps maintain it and prevent splintering such as those that have plagued Europe. Finally, with direct elections, a close election like the one of 2000 may have required an entire recount instead of just certain districts in one state.

Wildavsky, Ben. (2000) "School of Hard Knocks: An anachronism or protector of small states?" USNews & World Report Nov. 20, 2000.

"Majority Rule." Mathematics Teacher Oct 1992: 520-21.

Although many began with the notion that the best way to select a president was by election in congress, the debate on this subject soon illuminated the major flaw with this method. Fundamental in the U.S. Constitution is the idea of checks and balances, which by the very nature of a congressional elected president, would be put in jeopardy (Peirce 39). In the Federalist Papers No. 68, Alexander Hamilton stressed that unlike congress, or any other permanent body with duties beyond electing the president, the Electoral College would be free to act without influence (Hamilton). The fact was, if congress elected the president, bargains would be made between the two bodies, and their supporters, that would negate the value of separation of powers

Hamilton, Alexander (1788) FEDERALIST PAPERS: Federalist No. 68 The Mode of Electing the President From the New York Packet

Some common words found in the essay are:
Electoral College, Finally Hamilton's, James Wilson, Federalist Paper, Wrong Winner, electoral college, Supreme Court, electoral college system, college system, Alexander Hamilton, Europe Finally, Fundamental Constitution, COLLEGE SYSTEM, popular vote, direct vote, electing president, peirce 41, elect president, hamilton 68, direct vote system, congress elected, election president, debacle electoral college, hamilton 68 hamilton, congress elected president,
Approximate Word count = 2306
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)