Evaluate the view that, despite criticisms, the Electoral college is by far the best method of electing the US President

The Electoral College guarantees every state 3 votes which causes small states to be over-represented. In 2004, California had 34 million people with 55 votes and Wyoming had 500,000 people with 3 votes. This shows that Wyoming votes are worth more than Californian ones as one Wyoming vote is only worth 166,000 people while a Californian one requires 600,000. Subsequently, the will of smaller states are over-represented when electing the President. The inverse is true for the UK due to the South of England being more populated than the North, there are more constituencies. As a result, most MPs are from the South which has led to Southern interests being over-represented in Parliament. Some psephologists argue that the Electoral College makes the whole country relevant and not just highly populated areas, as in the UK. Without the Electoral College, smaller states would be forgotten in the election process akin to the North of England. However, the emphasis placed on swing states because of the Electoral College undermines this view. This is because safe seats are often neglected by candidates during their campaign. In 2016, Hilary Clinton did not visit Democratic safe seats like Michigan and chose to visit swing states like Arizona. Subsequently, she lost such seats to Donald Trump who became the 45th President.In addition, third parties struggle to make an impact due to the Electoral College. In 1992, Ross Perot won almost 19% of the national popular vote but got no Electoral College votes. Therefore, states like Maine and Nebraska require Electoral College votes to be proportional so that third party votes count towards electing the President. The UK’s electoral system has also been accused of being unfair to third parties. For example, in 2015, UKIP won over 3 million votes but only got one seat. In comparison, the SNP got 1.4 million votes and 56 seats. Supporters of the Electoral College say that, despite the unlikelihood of independent candidates becoming President, it has been largely successful. From 1864, two-thirds of elections have won over 50% of the popular vote. However, other reforms would also produce majority wins. In this sense, The National Popular Vote Bill would be a far better way to elect the President as it would ensure that the candidate that wins the popular vote becomes President. Also, it would be fairer to third parties as votes for them would directly affect the outcome of the election. The bill has already been enacted in 11 states to prevent rogue electors.However, in the majority of states that have not implemented this reform, rogue electors are an issue. In 2000, Barbara Lett Simmons became a “faithless elector” after she failed to cast her Electoral College vote for Gore/Liebermann – despite them winning a majority in her state. This is undemocratic as it ignores the will of the public. In the UK, the will of the public can often be ignored by MPs due to the party whip system. Like the US, it is harder to get re-elected as an independent candidate so MPs are forced to follow party policy even if it is against the will of their constituents. Some may argue that this is why the Founding Fathers designed the Electoral College – to protect the population if they have made an uninformed decision. Furthermore, the trustee model of representation would justify the actions of rogue electors as they have been elected to use their best judgement rather than blindly execute the public’s will. However, this view is quite antiquated. As education has become more widely accessible, people are far more informed about the political process. Therefore, they often demand that their representatives act as delegates rather than trustees.