Is it time to change the Electoral College?
The Electoral College has produced three results that are contrary to my belief about what is fair and just. Do you believe in “one person, one vote?” I have assumed that was a bedrock value of a fair system, but the Electoral College says that the vote of the rural voter should count more than the vote of the urban and suburban voter.
Really? When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered several methods for election of the president, the conflict between the South and the North that would lead to the Civil War 63 years later, already existed. In terms of population, the urban North far outnumbered the rural South, so, in effect, a candidate who won the North, would win the presidency. The Electoral College attempted to solve this problem by giving the vote to states rather than individual voters. This system favors the rural states.
One outcome is that a candidate can win the 270 electoral votes, but lose the popular vote. This has happened twice in the last 20 years — in 2000 and in 2016. The winning party has dismissed the calls for a change in the Electoral College as “sour grapes.”
The fact that the person who wins the most votes might not be elected seems undemocratic. The scholar may point out that the Pledge of Allegiance reminds us that we are a republic, not a pure democracy. OK, but it still seems unfair to me.
A second outcome is that presidential candidates “game” the Electoral College and focus on the key swing states. Is it surprising that candidates make few appearances in states that are solid red or solid blue? If you live in one of those states, is it being cynical to wonder whether your vote really does count?
The third outcome of the Electoral College is that the electoral process is rigged. We have heard that long before! Bernie Sanders said it and Donald Trump agreed. Dare I mention Ralph Nader, who said it years ago? It is undeniable that the Constitution has rigged the American political system against any third (or fourth) party candidate.
Article II, Section 1 mandates that if no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the electoral votes, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives. What’s the likelihood that a third party candidate will ever get more than 50 percent? Not going to happen.
Suppose that a third party candidate won 40 percent of the popular vote, the Republicans won 32 percent, and the Democrats won 28 percent. Given that either the Democrats or the Republicans would be in control of the House of Representatives, what is the likelihood that the House would choose the third party candidate who got the most votes?
Not going to happen.
Is this the way it should be? When an unusually high percentage of voters do not like either of the two-party candidates, what is an appropriate response? Does the forced dichotomy of voting for “the lesser of two evils” serve our country?
I think that many would-be voters believe that the system is rigged and their vote does not count. It is neither fair nor democratic to assign greater weight to the vote of a person according to their place of residence. It is time to change the Electoral College system so that each vote cast has an equal impact.
Sam Richardson lives in Northfield.