Virtue?

The previous blog has explained a little about the general origin of the Electoral College, but what about today? Does the bureaucratic institution work as intended by the Founding Fathers?

Upon leaving office, George Washington warned the nation against creating factions. (Spalding 1997: N/A) His warning was not heeded due to the external warfare between Great Britain and France that divided the nation, and as a result each side formed a political party. There are now two main parties in the Twenty-First Century that dominate American politics, the Democrats and Republicans (Barone 2001: 80). It is apparent that disunity among the people is what Washington was trying to avoid, but an interesting argument concerning the Electoral College is brought to light by Michael Barone. Is the College an institution that forces the Presidential Candidate into winning a majority of voters? Michael Barone certainly believes that this is a benefit to the system. He believes that because a candidate must win the majority vote of the College, it forces him/her to run their campaign in a way that will attract voters and not impose his/her political ideology on the rest of the population (Barone 2001: 80).

Personally, I agree with this argument because yes, a candidate should run his/her campaign and presidency in a way that does not force the populace into succumbing to his/her irrational political views. The subliminal obligation is in accord with the Founder’s principle of character and virtue. It must be remembered though that the candidate needs only to win a majority in the Electoral College. The people’s majority vote ultimately does not matter because it is up to their electors.