The Electoral College system should be eliminated and American presidents should be elected by popular vote. The arguments that Stephen Wayne offers in favor of the elimination of the Electoral College are quite convincing. But it is the arguments that Ronald B. Rapoport offers in favor of retaining the system that really convince the reader that the system is outmoded, unfair and in need of reform. Rapoport does not provide a single argument that cannot be refuted very easily and does not raise more problems than it pretends to solve. An analysis of Rapoport's reasons, with support from the ideas provided by Wayne, provides a very strong argument for dissolving this institution and creating a new system of direct presidential elections in its place.
Rapoport begins by saying that "some pundits" warn that the 1988 elections might result in the denial of victory to the presidential candidate who gets the greatest number of votes (315). He makes the "pundits" sound like foolish worriers and then says that this unlikely event should not "be misused to spark opposition to a venerable and useful institution of U.S. politics" (315). Simply because an institution is venerable, that is old, does not mean that it should be retained if it does not serve some purpose. Rapoport claims that the Electoral College is useful. His entire argument, therefore, will depend on whether he can prove that it is, in fact, useful. Though he does not admit the possibility that people's opposition to such a system is important he does understand that he must also show that this usefulness outweighs what most people see as an undesirable outcome -- the possibility that the Electoral vote might overturn the results of the popular vote.
Rapoport starts with the original reasons behind the creation of the Electoral College. It was a compromise between using a popular vote to elect the president, an idea which was "rejected as too radical", and elec...