Andrews 1

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/16/should-the-electoral-college-be-abolished?ref=opinion

Professor Amar versus Professor Fried

Take a stance on the Electoral College and write a paragraph.

Your paragraph need not be exhaustive. We are just practicing our synthesis skills.

The requirements include…

1. At least one reference to two documents.

(Doc A) The Electoral College Is Important Because It Reflects the Will of the
States
CHARLES FRIED 

We have a direct democracy: Senators, representatives and members of the Electoral College are all elected
directly by the people. They do not, however, elect the president directly. This is a feature of the kind of
government we have chosen from the beginning in which the states are important subsidiary (in some
instances, primary) units of government.

Even after a civil war and two world wars, the states control a large measure of the laws, administration and
finance that have an impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. The states have their own political cultures,
personalities and traditions which persist in spite of our far more transient population, an interconnected
national economy and national news media.

In order to reflect this mode of governance, the interactions between the national government and the states
in important matters often utilize the local units and personnel. The notion is that the states are not simply
administrative units of the national government or its local offices. In that context it is quite appropriate that
the head of state is elected state-by-state, albeit by popular vote in each state. That way at the most focused
democratic moment, every four years the candidates and parties must take the states into account.

And sometimes it will happen that, as this year, there will be a significant divergence -- millions of votes --
between who is chosen by the Electoral College and the winner of the overall popular vote. Sometimes that
disparity can act as a caution to the elected president, but where the House and Senate are in the hands of the
elected president's party that caution is less likely to operate.
 Andrews 3

(Doc B) States Don’t Use an Electoral College to Choose Their Leader, Neither
Should the Nation
AKHIL REED AMAR 

I prefer direct national election of our president. I take states seriously and value federalism, but in a different
way than do most defenders of the status quo. Consider the fact that each state picks its own president-
equivalent — its governor — quite directly: one person, one vote. All votes are counted equally and in close
races recounted carefully. America should copy this state-tested model when choosing the governor of us all:
the president.

The fact that no state uses an Electoral College for its governor suggests that many standard arguments for
the Electoral College — recount nightmares, fairness for rural areas, etc. — are makeweight. If these
arguments were truly sound, then states are stupid. And states are not stupid. 

Indeed, direct presidential election would harness state creativity in exciting ways. Currently, states have little
incentive to encourage voting. A state gets a pre-set number of electoral votes regardless of voter turnout. But
in a direct election system, states with higher turnout would have more clout in the final tally, giving state
governments incentives to encourage voting. States may do this different ways — early voting in some states;
same-day registration in others; making Election Day a holiday in still other jurisdictions. Federal oversight
would be necessary to keep state competition within fair boundaries, but state creativity could drive a race to
the top — democratic experimentalism and federalism at their best. 

Some states are already experimenting with a creative plan for future presidential races. Under the National
Popular Vote Interstate Compact that has gained momentum in recent years, states in the compact are
promising that, if enough states ultimately join the bandwagon, these states will give their electoral votes to
the national popular vote winner. It’s an interesting idea — in 2001 I floated a precursor of this plan — but
the current version does have technical wrinkles that need to be ironed out. (What if some noncooperating
states refuse to hold proper elections or careful recounts? What if some states lower the voting age in
ridiculous ways — letting 12-year-olds vote — to maximize their clout?) To work well, strong federal
oversight would be needed. 

There is at least one other way that future direct national elections could happen, even without a
constitutional amendment. This way — which I also floated in 2001 — would involve the two major
presidential candidates themselves agreeing, solemnly and publicly long before Election Day, to abide by the
national popular vote. Keep your eye on 2020.
 Andrews 4

(Doc C) Bonus Doc: Data

According to Source B, individual states do not use the Electoral College to select their president-equivalent, the
governor. This gives one person one vote, weighted equally between all voters. The states utilization of direct voting
means it’s a tried and true process. No state has transitioned to an Electoral College style procedure. Source D further
emphasizes this fact - voters in a rural state, like Wyoming, get more representation per elector than more densely
populated states like California. This uneven distribution gives rural states, who have the smaller percentage of the
American population, more power over who is President. As a democracy that is supposed to be equally representative
for everyone, this is unfair.