(Weisberger 24). Liable to deceptions of the truth and too uniformed of the candidates, the.
people, voting directly, pose a threat to the system of electing presidents (Weisberger 24).
Many people feel that the "popular election of presidents would work a diminution of the.
political power of racial and other minority groups in the nation's urban centers" (Bickel.
13). .
.
On the other hand, the position in favor of ridding the nation of the electoral.
college argues that the college serves no purpose. First of all, the present format of the.
electoral college manifests the colleges" insufficient qualities. The current format of the.
college, giving the edge to the larger states, exhibits the inadequacies of it (Polsby 32).
"The electoral college system, it is claimed, does not guarantee that the candidate with the.
most popular votes will win, produces great inequalities in voting power among the.
national electorate, contains a contingency election provision that is not only.
unrepresentative but that could also result in an impasse or in political duels, permits the.
will of the majority voters in a state or even in the nation to be thwarted through the.
constitutional independence of the electors, and permits the electoral decision to turn on.
fraud or chance in key states" (Best 22). A study conducted by John F. Banzhaf, III.
revealed that "states like New York and California have over two and one half times as.
much chance to effect the election of the president as residents of the smaller states".
(Bickel 6). Furthermore, causing confusion amongst the political system, the electoral.
college raised a question mark in Congress. Passed by more than the mandatory two-thirds.
vote in 1969, the House called for a constitutional amendment to change the election of.
presidents and vice-presidents be by nation a wide popular vote rather than the electoral.
college (Bickel 10). However, the amendment failed to result in a vote on the Senate floor.