Counterpoint: Preserving the Electoral College‪.‬

Imagine it is 1787. You are a delegate at the Constitutional Convention representing one of the original thirteen states. You have been charged with solving the multitude of problems facing the young nation by revising the Articles of Confederation. Soon, however, you and your co-delegates realize that this is more than just a revision exercise; you are creating a new method of governing. During these debates, the Electoral College was devised as a method for electing the president. It is an institution that has survived as a part of the American democratic process but its relevancy to current political realities has been questioned time and again. Many critics believe that this system is outdated and needs to be replaced with a more direct process of selecting the nation's chief executive. Because it is difficult to know the ramifications of such change, one must first consider how the Electoral College came about and how it actually functions today. Once these two points are understood, the need for the Electoral College will become evident because of its ability to maintain the system of checks and balances in American government, preserve the two-party system, and require a national president. These three aspects of America's political structure are protected by the Electoral College and each is essential for the continued stability of America's governance. The Electoral College was established in Article Two of the U.S. Constitution. The issue of how to choose the nation's chief executive was debated during the first two months of the Constitutional Convention. As Gary Gregg, Jr., director of the McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of Louisville, observes, "[a]s was the case with the entire constitutional order they designed, [the delegates] had to create a balanced approach that was at once innovative in its application and prescriptive in its design." (1) Prior to their deliberations concerning the executive, which included debate over length of term and whether it would be a permanent or rotating position, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention wrestled with a vexing problem of creating a bicameral legislature. Having just concluded the "Great Compromise," which determined that membership in the House would be based on population and that in the Senate by an equal number of seats per state, the delegates had no desire to repeat that debate over the selection of the executive. They knew, however, that selection of the president would conjure up many of the same issues they had just resolved. To avoid repetition of the same traumatizing debates, they searched for a quick and balanced solution that would be beneficial to everyone. They saw the election of the executive as an extremely important part of their new nation and therefore could not let it become a divisive issue. For these delegates, this process could become a way to strengthen the system of checks and balances in the newly formed government. (2)