Spring Break
Let the people be heard
It's time to abolish the Electoral College
J.D. Lewis
Issue date: 9/9/08 Section: Opinion
As much as I hate to admit, Al Gore should have been president of the United States. An inconvenient truth to be sure, but he did win the popular vote. We would have been spared the last eight years of democrats whining that George W. Bush stole the election, though he won the majority of electoral votes. Had the tables been turned, we wouldn't have heard a peep out of the whiners. They would have said the system did what it was intended to do.
This summer I read the results of one poll that suggested Barack Obama could win the popular vote while John McCain could carry the Electoral College-- another nightmare-in-waiting. Let's face it, it's time to do away with the Electoral College and let the people directly elect the president and vice president.
One argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it allows smaller states such as Delaware and Alaska, each with three electoral votes, to have more of a voice in the electoral process. How can that be when stacked against California's outrageous 55 electoral votes?
Suppose a candidate only carried the 32 states with 10 or fewer electoral votes. They would carry over half the states and only have 191 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win. On the other hand, another candidate would only need eleven states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, NJ) to gain 271 electoral votes and the White House.
Never mind all that red state/blue state nonsense for a moment. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon carried all 11 of those states and became president. George H.W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson each carried all but one. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton each carried eight of the 11. How does that give smaller states more of a voice?
Some historians point out that slavery was a factor behind the creation of the Electoral College. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for proportional representation in Congress, but could not vote themselves. The Electoral College would give slave states more of a voice than a straight popular vote. It's hard to make a case today based on that argument that is so obviously outdated.
Look at a map of the 2004 presidential election results by county. Many of the larger states aren't really that blue. With the exception of the coastal counties between San Francisco and Los Angeles, California is a red state. With the exception of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is a red state. With the exception of Detroit, Michigan is a red state. Not only does the Electoral College not represent the voters of the smaller states, but it neglects a good number of the voters in larger states as well.
Which is the more fair result: a candidate who wins the White House by carrying only a few large cities, or the candidate who carries the popular vote?
It is past time to do away with the Electoral College. We may not always be happy with the results, but with the popular vote, there can be no accusations of stolen elections, and the people's voices will definitely be heard.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
This summer I read the results of one poll that suggested Barack Obama could win the popular vote while John McCain could carry the Electoral College-- another nightmare-in-waiting. Let's face it, it's time to do away with the Electoral College and let the people directly elect the president and vice president.
One argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it allows smaller states such as Delaware and Alaska, each with three electoral votes, to have more of a voice in the electoral process. How can that be when stacked against California's outrageous 55 electoral votes?
Suppose a candidate only carried the 32 states with 10 or fewer electoral votes. They would carry over half the states and only have 191 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win. On the other hand, another candidate would only need eleven states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, NJ) to gain 271 electoral votes and the White House.
Never mind all that red state/blue state nonsense for a moment. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon carried all 11 of those states and became president. George H.W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson each carried all but one. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton each carried eight of the 11. How does that give smaller states more of a voice?
Some historians point out that slavery was a factor behind the creation of the Electoral College. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for proportional representation in Congress, but could not vote themselves. The Electoral College would give slave states more of a voice than a straight popular vote. It's hard to make a case today based on that argument that is so obviously outdated.
Look at a map of the 2004 presidential election results by county. Many of the larger states aren't really that blue. With the exception of the coastal counties between San Francisco and Los Angeles, California is a red state. With the exception of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is a red state. With the exception of Detroit, Michigan is a red state. Not only does the Electoral College not represent the voters of the smaller states, but it neglects a good number of the voters in larger states as well.
Which is the more fair result: a candidate who wins the White House by carrying only a few large cities, or the candidate who carries the popular vote?
It is past time to do away with the Electoral College. We may not always be happy with the results, but with the popular vote, there can be no accusations of stolen elections, and the people's voices will definitely be heard.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
stephen
posted 9/08/08 @ 10:59 PM EST
Rarely do I ever not roll my eyes while reading one of your articles, but I agree 100%. What's baffling is people who don't understand why anyone could be upset with the electoral college. (Continued…)
Hah
posted 9/09/08 @ 12:48 AM EST
When the Electoral College is abolished, California will have 1/6th of the nation's population to offer towards a popular election. How does that afford them less influence than the ~10% of the electorate they represent now? (55 electoral votes/538 total). (Continued…)
petey
posted 9/10/08 @ 9:05 PM EST
i might be wrong but i think that al gore received the most votes for president ever in the history of elections, and lost. lol
Sinjun
posted 9/11/08 @ 1:28 PM EST
More like early goverment didn't trust in the common person's ability to select a capable leader, and to prevent elections based on popularity.
Sinjun
posted 9/11/08 @ 1:41 PM EST
found this and thought it appropriate.
"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of [the President]. This end will be answered by committing the right of making [the choice] not to any pre-established body, but no men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. (Continued…)
Post a Comment