Question

Excerpt from Editorial: Time to Graduate from the Electoral College Louis Vincent

should work, and it has worked-most of the time. A few times, however, the system has failed. In these cases, the candidate with
fewer popular votes gained enough electoral votes to win the election. This occurred during the 2000 presidential election when
more people voted for Al Gore, but George W. Bush earned more electoral votes and became the president. What causes such a
breakdown in the system to happen? Let's return to the example of California and Alaska. A single vote in California has the
power to override thousands of votes in other states. Imagine that only one person in California casts a vote for Candidate A.
That candidate wins the popular vote in California 1-0. He or she gets all of California's 55 electoral votes. Across the country,
thousands of voters in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware
cast their votes for Candidate B. Not one voter casts a vote for Candidate A. These states have a combined 52 electoral votes,
which is not enough to beat California's 55. How can the leaders of our country believe that this system is fair?
Which of these statements makes the BEST counter-argument to the California scenario presented in Section 4?
A)It would never happen that only one person would vote in an election in California
B)Smaller states should have less power to choose the President than larger states have
C)Each state is free to allot electors propotionally to the popular vote, not all-or-nothing
D)The Founding Fathers' wisdom in creating the Electoral College should be respected, regardless of changes in conditions.

Answer 1

The most convincing counter-argument to the California scenario in the critique of the Electoral College is that states have the option to distribute their electoral votes proportionally instead of the winner-take-all approach. This solution could reduce disparities between the popular vote and the Electoral College outcome, and some states, like Maine and Nebraska, already use this system.

Step-by-step explanation:

The best counter-argument to the scenario presented in Section 4 about the Electoral College and the state of California is option C) Each state is free to allot electors proportionally to the popular vote, not all-or-nothing. This statement suggests a tangible solution to the winner-take-all issue by adopting the proportional method. Such a method would alleviate situations where the winner of the popular vote loses the presidential election due to the distribution of electoral votes.

Under the current system, most states allocate their electoral votes in a winner-take-all format, which can lead to a discrepancy between the national popular vote and the Electoral College result. While the editorial's California scenario is highly unlikely, many believe the winner-take-all approach does not accurately reflect the will of the people. By contrast, a proportional allocation of electoral votes would more closely match the popular vote within each state, potentially reducing the likelihood of a candidate winning the presidency without winning the popular vote.

Thus, a counter-argument based on proportionally allocating electoral votes provides a credible alternative to the current winner-take-all system without dismissing the original intent of the Founding Fathers, which was to balance the influence of less-populated states with that of more-populated ones. However, the proposed solution would require states to voluntarily change their methods, which is entirely feasible as Maine and Nebraska have already demonstrated.