In the electoral college, not all votes are equal in value and the system requires reform. The electoral college over represents small population states, in 2008, on average a state was awarded one electoral vote for every 565,66 people. However, Wyoming had three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens, in this situation each Wyoming citizen vote is the same as 3 votes for citizens in other states. There is also the chance for faithless electors, where someone who was voted in to support the Democrats might instead vote for a Republican candidate. ECVs are also unrepresentative because it is possible that the winner of the popular vote could lose in the electoral college vote, meaning the candidate with the most support wonΒt become president, this was the case in the 206 election in which Trump beat Hillary even with less votes. However, this system does preserve the voice of the small-population states. Wyoming has 83,305 people per ECV while California has 78,364 people per ECV (2020). This means that those with big entertainment centres and important cities that attract more people wonΒt overpower the voices of the smaller states during elections. Therefore, the electoral college is an outdated system that needs reform because of its ability to over represent in some parts and under represent in
others, overall, its an unrepresentative system.
Election finance limits access into the election, keeping the 2 major parties in control. Firstly, the cost of elections is too high and stops new parties competing. The Democratic Party raised $938 million in 2020 with over 3 million people having used American non-profit ActBlue during the election, with an average contribution of $35 each ($455,000,000 total). A smaller, more local or community driven party will never be able to raise those sorts of funds and will never have a chance against the major parties, keeping them in control. Small parties could take state subsidies, but these dont help smaller parties compete with major parties due to the $03 million spending cap that comes with it, as to stop too much taxpayer money being spent on parties, but this 03 million is nowhere close to the competitors. However, money is deemed as free speech and so the government limiting it too hard or going against donations would be unconstitutional, this was decided in Citizens United v. FEC (200), and Buckley v. Valeo (976) and so an amendment would be needed to make any significant change to election finance. Therefore, elections keep third parties from competing against the major parties because it costs too much and the money only goes to the major parties.