Why The Electoral College Makes Sense
Clear explanation from Donna Carol Voss at The Federalist. An excerpt:
The purpose of the Electoral College is to balance voting power across states so no one region of the country can gain too much control. If a president is elected by a simple majority of votes, a candidate who is wildly popular in one region (e.g., Ted Cruz in Texas, Mitt Romney in Utah) can ignore smaller regions and campaign only where large majorities are possible. Or a candidate who kills in California and New York can write off "flyover country" completely.If, however, the Electoral College elects a president, a candidate who is wildly popular in one region must also prevail in a number of sub-elections to win. The Electoral College ensures a better result for the country as a whole than the democratic power play wherein 51 percent of us matter and 49 percent of us don't.
Think of the Electoral College like the World Series. One person-one vote equates to the World Series Champions being determined by total number of runs scored. If the Dodgers win the first game 10-0, and the Yankees win the next four games 1-0, the Dodgers win the series. Even though the Yankees bested the Dodgers in four games, it doesn't matter because the Dodgers scored 10 runs to their 4. One anomalous game decides the whole series. Without the Electoral College, a few heavily populated states decide the whole election.
You could argue that since there's been only three presidential elections in which the electoral college has gone against the popular vote (Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush; John Quincy Adams won neither the popular vote nor the electoral college, but was placed by a vote of the House of Representatives), the electoral college doesn't make much of a difference.
But I would say that it's very existence forces candidates to consider and appeal to rural voters. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates need only focus on the issues and appeal to urban voters, since their dense populations would easily win a presidential election, regardless of how the urban population votes.
Patrick at November 2, 2016 3:45 AM
The Electoral College harkens back to the day when the US was a group of independent, but united, states - each one a sovereign state in a voluntary union with the others. Today, we tend to look upon states as mere administrative boundaries. Then, states were the geographic and cultural anchors for people.
Robert E. Lee, out of loyalty, sided with his native state, Virginia, in going to war with the US, despite his misgivings about doing so. Washington, Jefferson, Lee, Mason, et al were Virginians first, Americans second. Opening up the West and massive immigration made people look upon themselves Americans first, as they lost their geographic and cultural anchors when they moved to their new homes.
Patrick is right that the Electoral College forces national candidates to pay at least passing attention to the concerns of rural voters (witness Hillary reassuring voters she has no intent to take guns away). French farmers used to clog Paris streets with tractors and farm equipment to protest the fact that they felt ignored by the French government, a parliamentary system the operated almost entirely by the popular vote.
Without the Electoral College, a handful of US cities would elect the president - with New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, predominant. Agrarian states like Wyoming and Idaho would have no say in the presidential election and would be ignored by the candidates; and by the sitting president, having no relevance to his re-election or power base.
Instead, our Founding Fathers found a way to make the national government pay attention to each state and to the concerns of the people therein.
Conan the Grammarian at November 2, 2016 6:11 AM
Leave a comment