Arguments for the Electoral College:
Protects small states: The Electoral College ensures that small states are not ignored in presidential elections. Without the Electoral College, candidates would only campaign in highly populated urban areas and ignore less populated rural areas.
Promotes stability: The Electoral College ensures that a candidate must win a majority of electoral votes, not just a plurality of the popular vote. This promotes stability by preventing a candidate from winning the presidency with just a small percentage of the popular vote.
Maintains the federal system: The Electoral College is part of the overall federal system in which states have significant autonomy. The system ensures that states have a say in electing the president and prevents the federal government from gaining too much power.
Arguments against the Electoral College:
Disproportionate influence: The Electoral College gives disproportionate influence to voters in swing states, while voters in solidly red or blue states are ignored. This means that candidates focus their campaigns on a few key states, ignoring the concerns and issues of voters in other states.
Winner-takes-all system: The winner-takes-all system used in most states means that a candidate can win all of a state's electoral votes with just a small percentage of the popular vote. This can lead to candidates ignoring the concerns of voters who do not support them.
Undemocratic: The Electoral College is undemocratic because it allows a candidate to win the presidency even if they do not win the popular vote. This has happened several times in U.S. history, including in the 2000 and 2016 elections.