Argument Against Abolishing the Electoral College
I must say that when starting this semester I was staunchly for the abolishment of the Electoral College, believing that it was inherently unfair, went against the best interests of the people, and favored the power-elite; however, that opinion has recently changed due to my learning more historical facts, which, in turn, led to the ability of making a better-informed decision.
My change of opinion started when I learned the details of the origins of the Populist party. Arising in the late 19th century, the Populists were a grass-roots political party comprised mostly of discontented southern and western farmers. Among other issues, the Populists were known for two key things: the free, unlimited coinage of silver and public ownership of railroads and communications. (www.americanhistory rules.com/unit5/docs/PopulistParty.pdf) The Populist party supported candidate James Weaver in the election of 1892. Weaver was only able to gain 22 electoral votes and just over 1 million popular votes, a small piece of the pie but a sizable piece; 22 electoral votes could easily win or lose a presidency, even by today’s standards. Now, back to the main issues supported by the Populists: the free, unlimited coinage of silver and public ownership of railways and communications. In my opinion, these two issues were extremely bad ideas for the nation, especially one generation out of fighting the Civil War. The free and unlimited coinage of silver would have had a skyrocketting effect on inflation, serving immediate good for the poor farmer by raising prices on agricultural products, but, in the long run, large inflation causes bigger problems for a nation’s economy. On the public ownership of railways and communications issue: taking an industry away from private ownership and distributing that business among the people is a flagrantly Marxist idea and in direct contention with the founding...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document