The Politics of Direct Election

The New York Times published an editorial yesterday calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College. The article described the Electoral College as a "ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis." The editors urged for a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.
The editorial article criticized the Electoral College as an outdated process that allows for the possibility (which has occurred three times since the Civil War) that a president will be elected without the popular vote of the country. Critics also feel that the system disproportionately favors smaller states, since every state automatically receives three electors even though their small population should only dictate one or two votes. "The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system," the editors explained. But the Electoral College also has other consequences, from the resulting emphasis on swing states in election campaigning to the remote possibility of chaos that could ensue if electors did not vote for the candidate chosen by their state. While supporters argue that the Electoral College is necessary to represent the interests of small states, opponents point out that such states' interests are adequately spoken for in the Senate. There is no interest higher, the Times urged, "than making every vote count."