Pros and cons about the electoral college are often cited. For example, one often cited pro is that the use of the electoral college prevents calls for recounts and offers a level of certainty to elections. An often stated con is that the use of the electoral college may allow the candidate who does not win the popular vote to win the overall election. Those who cite this con are concerned that the will of the people is not always counted in an election. The Electoral College should continue to be used in presidential elections because it is the fairest means of electing a president. It ensures that people in every state have a role in electing the president, no matter what their state’s demographics are.

Question

A student is developing a counterclaim to this argument. Which counterclaim is the most fair and effective?

A. There have been four presidential elections in our nation’s history where the winner won the Electoral College vote but not the popular vote.

B. Everyone knows that each voter should have only one vote, and the Electoral College makes it possible for some people’s votes to count as more or less than one.

C. Since it is an all-or-nothing system for each state’s votes, the Electoral College allows elections to potentially be decided solely by swing states.

D. The reason why the Electoral College was established was to make it more difficult for people of color and formerly enslaved people to vote.

Answer 1

The most fair and effective counterclaim to the argument that the Electoral College ensures a fair representation of all states in electing a president is:

C. Since it is an all-or-nothing system for each state’s votes, the Electoral College allows elections to potentially be decided solely by swing states.

This counterclaim highlights a significant issue with the Electoral College system — it emphasizes the strategic importance of swing states, which can overshadow the votes of people in states that are solidly Democratic or Republican. This scenario challenges the idea that every voter in every state has an equal impact on the election outcome, as candidates may focus disproportionately on swing states rather than engaging with voters nationwide. It is both fair and effective because it draws attention to a structural flaw in the system without resorting to generalizations or assumptions about voter value.