The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy

       The article “The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy” has published in the New York Times on February 28, 2019. Jamelle Bouie wrote this article. He turned into a New York Times Opinion editorialist in 2019. Before that, he was the chief political journalist for Slate magazine. He situated in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. The New York Times is an American daily sited in New York City with a deep impression and readership. The Times is positioned seventeenth on the planet by flow and second in the U.S. The paper is claimed by The New York Times Company.
       Over the decades, the United States’ electoral system has often relied on the Electoral College; while it has usually worked effectively, Bouie argues is that this system has not stood the test of time. It has mostly led to the increasing argument in recent weeks against the Electoral College system. It understood by looking at the electoral status quo. Ideally, considering the idea that direct appointment of the president would afford equivalent weights to all electorates, then the Electoral College only works by providing an oversized load to a constricted cluster of voters in just a few states. In this case, the Electoral College perceived as bestowing the presidency on individuals note duly elected by the majority of American electorates.
       Considering the impact of the Electoral College on the interest of the majority of American electorates; this is a significant reason why Bouie questions the credibility of the election system. It is particularly important as it is a necessary approach to dealing with issues such as gerrymandering and public financing of the elections that have adversely affected the polls, especially in recent decades. It is a suitable time to reconsider the idea of Electoral College and leave it to the past since it is seemingly undemocratic and forces representatives to overlook majority of the electorates and focus their campaigns in a few states. While Electoral College has worked for the past decades, presently it impedes on the constitutional rights of the voters. It is true especially considering the idea that the presidency is a nationwide office; as such, it is necessary that it is decided directly by the majority of American electorates.
        The issues of partisan politics have impeded on the capacity of the Congress or the states to garner sufficient votes to pass and sanction the necessary amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. Republicans at present profit by its twists — there's a nostalgic connection to the foundation, fixing to common folklore about the Constitution. In this view, the Electoral College is one of the extraordinary tradeoffs of the Constitutional Convention, some portion of the shrewdness and virtuoso of the "establishing fathers" who looked for a center way between unadulterated vote-based system from one perspective and against majoritarianism on the other. The fact that this problem seems respectable. The Electoral College was indeed a workaround intended to fulfill a partitioned Constitutional Convention at the expense of genuine usefulness. This conspicuous brokenness is the reason the Electoral College has been a wellspring of determined disappointment, with ages of legislators presenting new recommendations for adjusting or annulling the framework outright. The most straightforward answer for dodging the Electoral College is the National Popular Vote, which would produce results once the part states made up the lion's share of discretionary votes. Be that as it may, the inactivity behind the Electoral College is stable, which is the reason it needs vocal rivals presenting their defense as noisily and regularly as could reasonably be expected.