How The Electoral College Disregards the Will of the People

Proposal

Introduction

Every four years the United States is divided not only on who should be the next president, but how that
president should be elected. Ideally, the candidate that the majority of the American people want in office
should win the election. Instead, for reasons that made sense in colonial times, 538 electors decide who
holds the nation’s highest office (U.S. Const. art. 2, § 1). By adding this complicated buffer between the
people’s choice and the outcome of the election, millions of people are disenfranchised, the founding
fathers’ intentions are disregarded, and the will of the people is ultimately ignored.

How did we get here? How has voting, one of the most democratic processes, become so undemocratic?
In this research paper, I will use the United States’ founding documents and scholarly analyses of those
documents to find out exactly why the United States still has this flawed system. By understanding why
the Electoral College system still persists over two centuries after its creation, we can begin to make
changes to ensure that each person has an equal say in America’s most high-stakes election.

Literature Review

Article 2 section 1 of the United States Constitution describes the framework for the Electoral College.
The number of electors that each state receives is equal to the number of senators and representatives that
state has in Congress (U.S. Const. art. 2, § 1). While the number of representatives in a state is somewhat
proportional to its population, the extra two senate seats that each state receives leads to disproportionate
representation between states. California, the most underrepresented state, has one elector for every
705,00 people, while Wyoming, the most overrepresented state, has one elector for every 194,000 people,
making one Wyomingites vote 3.5 times more impactful than a Californian’s (Rendell, 2016 Dec 19).

At the time that the Electoral College was formed, the Founding Fathers knew that most Americans had
no means - or willingness - to form an educated opinion about presidential candidates. Instead, they
envisioned a group of extremely qualified and informed electors that would ensure an uneducated
populace would not elect a blundering candidate (Goldstein, Fall 1996).
Research Questions

This research will serve to answer three questions:

● What were the intentions of the framers when creating the Electoral College?
● Why can the Electoral College winner differ from the popular vote winner?
● Why is the Electoral College a partisan issue?

Method

This research will be accomplished by reviewing founding documents, proposed and adopted legislation,
and scholarly articles. The differences between America when it was founded and America now is the
main factor that will be considered. This review and analysis will be summarized and explained in three
sections:

● How the modernization of America over the last two hundred years has called into question the
need for an Electoral College.
● How the winner of the Electoral College does not always align with the person who received the
most votes.
● How the Electoral College disenfranchises millions of voters.

Discussion

By investigating how the reason for having the Electoral College has changed since its founding in
conjunction with analyzing how the system itself was flawed since the beginning, we will be better
equipped to amend its flaws. Alternatively, abolishing the College all together would make the
presidential election much more typical and straightforward, akin to any other congressional or local
election process.

Research into the Electoral College is extremely necessary today, especially during the peak of an
election year. The failure of our election system in 2016 garners a revisit into how candidates can play the
system and win the presidency with a minority vote. The American people should be the sole voice in
deciding who will lead the country; through this research, it will become clear that the Electoral College
does not serve our country in the way the founders envisioned and should be amended, if not abolished.
References

Goldstein, J. K. (Fall 1996). Electoral College. Update on Law-Related Education.

Rendell, E. (2016 Dec 19). New Course for Electoral College? Philadelphia Daily News, 18.

U.S. Const. art. 2, § 1.

Research Proposal Rubric

Name: Jacob Hobbs
Topic: The Electoral College

Grade Exceeds Meets Approaching Lacking

Components Expectations Expectations Expectations

Overview/ Paper has a The opening The intro vaguely The introduction
Introduction (10) descriptive title. introduces introduces the doesn’t really
The overview everything but topic. A title is match the topic
captures the lacks an attention- missing or and focus of the
reader’s attention, grabbing opening. generic. rest of the paper.
indicates the The title is a little
intended vague.
audience, and
provides a brief
overview of the
proposal.

Literature The literature The literature The literature The literature

Review (20) review is very review is relatively review is simplistic review covers
(Information on the comprehensive comprehensive and describes irrelevant material
topic) and describes and describes some relevant or is missing.
relevant material. most relevant material
material.

Research Specific research Research Some research No research

Questions (10) questions are questions are questions are questions are
included in the included in the included in the included in the
proposal and they proposal, and their proposal, but they proposal.
are directly connection to the are unconnected
connected to the material reviewed to the material
material reviewed in the introduction reviewed in the
in the introduction. is good. introduction.

Methodology A methods section A methods section A methods section No methods

(10) clearly presents is present, and is present, but section is included
(procedure clearly the researcher’s only a few numerous in the proposal or
described, a plan, and the elements of the elements of the many key
comprehensive list of section is missing methods are methods are elements of the
source material none of the key absent or absent or methods are
provided, method(s) of elements of the described described absent.
analysis discussed, methods. insufficiently. insufficiently.
ethical issues
considered)

Discussion (10) A broad range of Some important Some implications No potential

implications are implications are are discussed, but implications of the
discussed that discussed, which they are not proposed study
connect directly to are connected to strongly are discussed.
the proposed the proposed connected to the
study and why it is study. proposed study.
necessary.
Works Cited: A properly An MLA Works An MLA Works No MLA Works
(10) formatted MLA Cited is attached Cited is attached Cited is attached
(2 database sources Works Cited which which meets all but it does not or only URL’s are
+ 1 other credible meets all requirements, but meet all source listed.
source) requirements is it contains 1 or 2 requirements and
attached. formatting issues. contains
formatting issues.

Quality of Proposal exhibits Proposal exhibits Proposal exhibits Proposal exhibits

Diction/Writing sophisticated adequate diction, simplistic diction inappropriate
diction, clear and is easy to with little sentence diction, sloppy
(20) concise writing understand, and variety. writing and
with effective includes some sentence structure
sentence variety. sentence variety. issues..

Grammar, Writing observes Writing generally Writing has Writing poorly

Usage, & the grammatical observes the several observes the
conventions of grammatical mechanical errors grammatical
Mechanics (10) standard written conventions of and readability conventions of
English. Paper is standard written problems. standard written
free from English. Paper English.
distracting has a few
mechanical errors distracting
(grammar, mechanical errors.
spelling, and
punct). One or two
minor typos exist
but are not overly
distracting.

Total: