Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America G Terry Madonna. Presidential Studies Quarterly; Washington35.2 (Jun 2005): 411-412. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. By George C. Edwards III. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2004. 198 pp. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America is a splendidly and clearly written primer on the origins, history, and complexity of the electoral college system. But George Edwards is out for bigger game-namely, the dissolution of the electoral college and its replacement with direct election. His main argument is that the electoral college is fundamentally at odds with the principles of political equality and majority rule. Edwards makes the case that the electoral college may be unique as an instrument to select a chief executive, but its continued existence cannot be justified, in large part because the mechanisms of the electoral college at various points through its operation can defy the will of the people. In order to make his argument, Edwards tackles the debates and activities of the Founders at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, contending that the Framers backed into the electoral college by necessity because of the need to deal with certain practical realities. Moreover, the final product was not the result of a well-designed or systematically thought-out presidential selection system. Critics of the Edwards case surely would point out that the thrust of the entire convention debate was to qualify or modify popular majorities and to enshrine limitations on the scope of the national government. Even so, notwithstanding those who might quibble with this analysis, Edwards's most compelling point is that the Founders' considerations are not relevant today: presidents simply are no longer selected by Congress, state legislatures, or electors. Another part of Edwards's attack deals with the notion that the electoral college protects the interests of small states and minorities, and it preserves federalism. He argues that these three conventional rationales for the electoral college are not rooted in the arguments made by the Founders most involved in its design, and they do not operate today in the manner their supporters say they do: small states have little community interest other than their size, minorities are not concentrated solely in large or even competitive states, and the selection of the president bears no relationship to federalism in terms of its function or structure. Edwards gives short shrift to those defenders of the electoral college who hold firm in the belief that the current electoral system stands as an important bulwark against the increasing centralization of power in the federal government. The argument is that the general ticket or unit rule, mostly referred to as the winner-take-all principle, implemented during the Jacksonian era in particular works to enlarge the power of the states in presidential elections, and is a vital element in defense of.

1. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America
G Terry Madonna. Presidential Studies Quarterly;
Washington35.2 (Jun 2005): 411-412.
Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. By George C.
Edwards III. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University
Press, 2004. 198 pp.
Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America is a splendidly
and clearly written primer on the origins, history, and
complexity of the electoral college system. But George Edwards
is out for bigger game-namely, the dissolution of the electoral
college and its replacement with direct election. His main
argument is that the electoral college is fundamentally at odds
with the principles of political equality and majority rule.
Edwards makes the case that the electoral college may be
unique as an instrument to select a chief executive, but its
continued existence cannot be justified, in large part because
the mechanisms of the electoral college at various points
through its operation can defy the will of the people.
In order to make his argument, Edwards tackles the debates and
activities of the Founders at the 1787 Constitutional
Convention, contending that the Framers backed into the
electoral college by necessity because of the need to deal with
certain practical realities. Moreover, the final product was not
the result of a well-designed or systematically thought-out
presidential selection system. Critics of the Edwards case surely
would point out that the thrust of the entire convention debate
was to qualify or modify popular majorities and to enshrine
limitations on the scope of the national government. Even so,
notwithstanding those who might quibble with this analysis,
Edwards's most compelling point is that the Founders'
considerations are not relevant today: presidents simply are no
longer selected by Congress, state legislatures, or electors.

2. Another part of Edwards's attack deals with the notion that the
electoral college protects the interests of small states and
minorities, and it preserves federalism. He argues that these
three conventional rationales for the electoral college are not
rooted in the arguments made by the Founders most involved in
its design, and they do not operate today in the manner their
supporters say they do: small states have little community
interest other than their size, minorities are not concentrated
solely in large or even competitive states, and the selection of
the president bears no relationship to federalism in terms of its
function or structure.
Edwards gives short shrift to those defenders of the electoral
college who hold firm in the belief that the current electoral
system stands as an important bulwark against the increasing
centralization of power in the federal government. The
argument is that the general ticket or unit rule, mostly referred
to as the winner-take-all principle, implemented during the
Jacksonian era in particular works to enlarge the power of the
states in presidential elections, and is a vital element in defense
of the federative principle.
In Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America, Edwards
shows little patience with the four alternative plans most often
discussed as "reforms" to the electoral college system. These
proposals-the automatic, proportional, district, and national
bonus plans-have their advantages, and each partially mitigates
some of the shortcomings of the current system. Still, none
satisfies Edwards, who unabashedly favors direct election
without any provision for runoff. His argument in favor of
direct election is partially made in the context of how modern
campaigns are waged. With direct election, presidential
campaigns would focus on more voters in more states than just
the undecided voters in the battleground states. Additionally, it
would renew party competition and spur activists to turn out
voters in states that traditionally have not been competitive. A
more thorough discussion of the pitfalls of direct election would
have helped readers make a more informed judgment relative to

3. the merits of changing the selection method.
Interestingly, the debate over the merits of maintaining,
modifying, or eliminating the electoral college has been
confined largely to academics and to a lesser extent to
journalists. Not even the results of the 2000 presidential
election sparked a national debate. Public surveys routinely
show the public in favor of direct election but not with great
intensity, and barring a genuine crisis, perhaps having an
election thrown into the House of Representatives, insufficient
public pressure is unlikely to move Congress seriously to debate
amending the Constitution.
The lack of public concern at the moment should not mean an
end to the debate over the merits of maintaining or eliminating
the electoral college. In a relatively brief book, George Edwards
has made a very compelling case to eliminate the electoral
college. His arguments will be hard to ignore, even by the most
devoted champion of the electoral college system.
AuthorAffiliation
G. Terry Madonna
Franklin & Marshall College
Word count: 765
Copyright Center for the Study of the Presidency Jun 2005
These assignments should take the form of a short essay with
references. See the Critical Writing Rubric (Course Resources
Module, below) for more details. They should be typed-up as a
word document (.doc, .docx) and uploaded to Canvas by the
posted due date.
PROMPTS/QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL WRITING
ASSIGNMENT
1. Read the article I reviewed in Tuesday's lecture, linked here:
After Pushback, Oregon Scraps Report Linking Private Forests
To Water Quality Risks (Links to an external site.)Links to an
external site.

4. 2. Find another source that discusses the connection between
water quality and timber harvest or forest health in general.
This can be for any region around the world.
3. Discuss both articles
a. Who are the stakeholders? What are their interests?
Economic, health? Do they live in the area affected?
b. Do you think there is solid evidence for timber harvest
impacts on water quality? If not, what else is needed?
c. Do you think the ODF or the DEQ was right in the article
above?
d. Why do you think this is such a controversial issue?
e. What should be done? Who should do it?
4. Use the CRITICAL WRITING GUIDELINES AND RUBRIC
(see below) to evaluate the authors and apply skepticism to their
positions.
GUIDLINES FOR CRITICAL WRITING ASSIGNMENTS
Critical Writing Guidelines and Rubric.pdf
Each critical writing assignment will consist of two parts, a
response to the prompts or questions posed, including
supporting citations from your own independent research, and a
critical evaluation of the sources that you chose to use.
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES
Each submission should include:
I. CRITICAL WRITING RESPONSE TO PROMPTS AND
QUESTIONS (10 pts)
Follow the instructions provided for the assignment. Be sure to
put everything in your own words. Summarize the topic and the
content of any sources you cite.
II. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SOURCES (10 pts)
Publisher/Organization/Author (2 pt)
1. Name/Title of organization/publisher
2. Type (government, educational, NGO, etc.)
3. Name of author
4. Authors qualifications, credentials

5. 5. Is this source credible?
Purpose/Agenda/Bias (3 pts)
1. Does the source have an obvious purpose?
2. Does this lead to a biased view of the issue?
3. Does this bias affect the credibility of their position?
4. If you believe the source is unbiased, explain why
Skepticism (3 pts)
1. Are you skeptical about anything in this source?
Note that skepticism is not the same as doubt or cynicism; it is
the application of your own judgement and knowledge to an
argument and the pursuit of a more complete understanding.
2. Is any information confusing or misrepresented?
3. Is anything missing (information, an important viewpoint)?
4. Does the author provide sources? Are they credible (can you
find the data, is it relevant)?
Citations (2 pts)
1. Author’s name, Title of article/video, Year published, URL