Political Focus: Defending the electoral college
After a candidate won the popular vote and yet lost the general election, the 2016 election has resurfaced the presidential voting process here in the United States. Several Democratic candidates have emerged to challenge incumbent President Donald Trump and propose removing the electoral college. This long-standing and unique voting process in the United States has been a topic of debate throughout U.S. history.
The electoral college originated as an agreement between representatives of the colonies while founding this nation. Some wanted the president to be elected through the popular vote, while others wanted the position to be appointed. The electoral college became the compromise between the two groups. Each state has one electoral vote per representative and senator delegated to, in theory, cast a vote for the presidential candidate who gained the most votes within that state.
When discussing the electoral college, it’s important to note the United States is not a democracy; the populus does not run the country. The United States is a constitutional republic composed of a federation of states.
Fears when founding this nation came in twofold: one, that the majority would rule over the minority, and two, powerful states choke the smaller states.
The purpose of the electoral college is to minimize the power of the bigger and more populated states. It was never designed to grant one voter, one vote. In fact, the American electorate in its entirety is intended to equal the playing field amongst states and people, not solely people.
Though this may appear unfair — evidenced in the 2016 general election — the electoral college works to the standard of excellence and fulfills its intention.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote by two percentage points. Trump, however, won the electoral college by 14 percentage points electing him president. Trump won using electoral votes.
The electoral college prevented Hillary Clinton from using her 6 million vote victory in New York and California while ignoring her 3 million vote loss in the other 48 states. When combined, Clinton only won the popular vote using only two states. Ignore these two and Trump won the popular vote by over 3 million votes.
If the U.S. had a popular vote system, two states would have decided the result of the 2016 election for the other 48. If we did away with the electoral college, candidates would only focus on the most populated states, completely ignoring the smaller.
Currently, the electoral college pressures candidates to campaign in a variety of states with diversity in economies, ideals and people. Because of the need to appeal to a variety of people, candidates and political parties provide a large platform covering assorted policies and solutions.
The United States has found a system where the state population is accounted for and at the same time gives a voice to the minority states. The United States is not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic made up of a federation of states each diverse.
The electoral college has become the best compromise between the states rights and the people’s voice. Abolishing the electoral college would be a mistake for this country with grave consequences.
Kenneth M Sears • May 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM
The whole movement to “improve” the Electoral College by having states pass laws forcing their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote is the most pernicious, deceitful, cynical bit of demagogic hucksterism to come down the pike probably in the history of the USA. There are so many reasons the whole thing is an absolute crock, it boggles the mind just to try and keep them all in order.
The whole thrust of this movement is insidious, its objective is a pure lie.
To put it the most simply: this movement, were it to succeed, would NOT “improve” the Electoral College. It would ABOLISH it in every way except for leaving a hollow shell, a charade, a pretense.
As it stands now, the electors actually CAN vote for whoever they want. (Hence that whole desperate campaign in 2016 to get them not to vote for Trump.) But historically they have mostly stuck honorably to their promise to vote for the candidate WHO WON THEIR STATES. (Thus Trump’s victory in 2016.) This campaign would, ironically, take away from the electors the very freedom that the anti-Trumpers were pinning their last hopes on in 2016.
The people who want to ditch the Electoral College know it’s an impossible battle to amend the constitution. NO state is going to vote away its place at the table, especially not the smaller states that know it means they are henceforth vassals of the New York-California Principate.
So instead they’re trying to do this end-run on the constitution by saying, “Okay, we won’t abolish the Electoral College; we’ll just bind electors by state law to vote for the popular vote winner.”
Which means it’s the same outcome, precisely the same thing as abolishing the Electoral College. Without all the muss and fuss of doing it honestly, LEGALLY.
So it’s a lie and a fraud, an insidious ploy to destroy the people’s constitution by steamrolling the people.
If the electors can only vote for the popular vote winner, then, 1) why should the electors vote at ALL? Why on earth go through the empty formality? What does “Electoral College” MEAN, then? Obviously, nothing. I.e., we’ve got effective abolishment not only of IT but of its whole constitutional rationale. Which leads to… 2) why then should the citizens in a state where the majority are FOR a candidate they know full well New York and California are AGAINST—EVEN. VOTE?
They know, after all, that their state electors will invalidate their vote ANYWAY….
A bit of DISENFRANCHISEMENT, anyone? With a heaping dollop of serfdom?
I hope and trust that, finally, the Supreme Court will fully strike down these idiotic state laws. The laws amount to a repeal of the constitutionally established Electoral College in everything but name, in the most underhanded, insidious, fraudulent manner possible.
Michael Avenatti could hardly have thunk up anything more sleazy.
Our country is the United STATES of America, not The United Citizens of America. The Electoral College gives every state a meaningful voice at the table, and requires presidential candidates to at least TRY to win over the whole country. If this malignant movement to destroy the Electoral College prevails (and I don’t see how it finally can, unless the Supreme Court is doing LSD), the United STATES of America is finally and conclusively OVER. Something, of course, will take its place, something still called the USA, but…no, it won’t be. The name USA, just like “Electoral College”, will be a pretense, a charade.