Argument Analysis: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College

In “The Electoral College Flunks the Test in an Age of Democracy,” Nova Southeastern University law professor and former U.S. Representative John B. Anderson argues that the Electoral College should be replaced with the popular vote in presidential elections. Though Anderson makes his case from a legal perspective, he utilizes historical evidence and statistical data to highlight the inconsistencies of allowing the Electoral College to decide modern elections. Through the skilled use of the persuasive appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos, Anderson is able to counter the assertion that the Electoral College is still relevant in American politics and demonstrate the consequences of enabling this outmoded institution to exist.

To establish his case against the Electoral College, Anderson clearly outlines his thesis, audience, and purpose. Anderson’s thesis is the Electoral College should be replaced with the popular vote because the Electoral College undermines the right of voters to be treated equally in the electoral system, whether they are selfish voters or not (Anderson, 2005, p. 17). Anderson’s essay appears in the Human Rights Magazine, which is published quarterly by the American Bar Association and distributed to members of the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities (About the Magazine). This group consists of Association members and was established to advocate for civil rights in the legal profession (About Us). Thus, it can be determined that the primary reader of this article will be attorneys with a focus or interest in civil rights issues. The purpose of the essay is to convince civil rights attorneys that there is a legal and ethical basis for opposing the Electoral College.

Anderson also makes effective use of the persuasive elements of ethos, pathos, and logos to strengthen his position. Appealing to ethos, the biography that concludes the article reveals that Anderson is a law professor, a chair of the Center for Voting and Democracy, and a former representative of the U.S. House of Representatives (2005, p. 19). Additionally, he builds his credibility with the reader by discussing his own experience attempting to pass legislation that would abolish the Electoral College (2005, p. 18). Further, Anderson affirms his credibility as a legal scholar by accurately discussing court cases that relate to the Electoral College. For example, he succinctly discussed the role that McPherson v. Blacker had in influencing the Bush v. Gore decision (2005, p. 18). Because Anderson is addressing an audience of legal professionals, building his credibility through an appeal to ethos is crucial in persuading his audience.

Additionally, Anderson subtly appeals to pathos to strengthen the position held in his essay. Though Anderson primarily appeals to logic, he also utilizes emotionally connotative language that is intended to instill a negative perception of the Electoral College system. For example, Anderson cited the director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management in writing, “‘today, it’s mainly dictatorships like Communist China that use an indirect system to choose their highest leader’” (2005, p. 17). This analogy between the Electoral College and Communist China serves to taint the reader’s esteem for the Electoral College by equating it with authoritarian government. Further, Anderson uses terms like “archaic,” “outmoded,” and “discredited system” to induce feelings of unease towards the electoral system. Anderson’s connotative descriptions of the Electoral College effectively utilize pathos by transmitting a feeling of frustration to the reader.

Finally, Anderson makes extensive use of logic, presenting evidence to support his claims. The first argument that Anderson makes in that the Electoral College is inappropriate for a democratic system of governance. Anderson conducts a historical analysis of the origins of the Electoral College in order to affirm this point. As Anderson noted, the Electoral College was originally conceived by states’ rights advocates who wished to undermine the popular vote in order to preserve state protections that were established under the Articles of the Confederation (2005, p. 17). Further, Anderson asserted that notables James Madison, James Wilson, and Governor Morris actually preferred a popular vote bud compromised on the Electoral College to appease states’ rights advocates (2005, p. 17). By addressing the historical context of the Electoral College, Anderson demonstrates that its inception was not based on sound democratic principles.

Second, Anderson asserts that the Electoral College corrupts elections, and thus violates the will of the people. Using facts to illustrate this point, Anderson discussed the narrow Ohio victory during the 2004 elections where the president won by 119,000 votes (2005, p. 18). As Anderson assesses, narrow victories provide an incentive for fraud. Further, Anderson cited New York University law professor Richard H. Pildes’s assertion that the Electoral College system allots disproportional power to rural states with smaller populations (2005, p. 18). As Pildes established, the Senate gives Wyoming the same voting power as Californians, which consequentially creates an imbalance in the number of electors that Wyoming is assigned (2005, p. 18). As these statistics demonstrate, the Electoral College leads to election results that distort the preferences of the general public.

Third, Anderson posits that the Electoral College causes presidential candidates to overlook most of the electorate. Anderson presents facts pertaining to the conduct of political campaigns to support this claim. Discussing the 2004 elections, Anderson noted that President Bush only polled eighteen states when preparing his reelection campaign (2005, p. 18). Further, Anderson identifies the trend of campaigns and the media solely focusing on battleground states, which are increasing in number due to population shifts (2005, p. 18). As Anderson demonstrates, the Electoral College renders presidential elections meaningless to millions of Americans who are ignored by presidential campaigns.

Finally, Anderson anticipates and refutes the main counterarguments to his position. First, Anderson considered the counterargument that popular votes would undermine the integrity of the federalist system by creating chaos (2005, p. 18). Yet, Anderson countered that the delays that occurred following the Florida miscount in the 2000 election demonstrated the chaotic nature of the current system (2005, p. 18). Second, Anderson considered the counterargument that the Electoral College is a reflection of U.S. political values. However, he countered that the current system enables “538 faceless, nameless electors” to make decisions on behalf of voters (2005, p.18). Anderson demonstrates that the Electoral College is not aligned with U.S. democratic values.

Anderson effectively uses the persuasive elements of ethos, pathos, and logos to highlight the flaws of relying on the Electoral College system to select the president. Through historical analysis, legal analysis, and statistics, Anderson is able to effectively demonstrate the detrimental civic consequences of keeping the Electoral College in place.

References

“About the magazine”. (n.d.). Human Rights Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home.html

“About us”. (n.d.). Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/groups/individual_rights/about_us.html

Anderson, J.B. (2005). The electoral college flunks the test in an age of democracy. Human Rights, 32(2), 17-19. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org