Should the electoral college be abolished?

Yes

5 of 27

by Stephen Dreyfus

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

www.electoral_colleg e_equals_electoral_g arbage

Electoral Colllege Equals Electoral Garbage

Common sense isn't. That is, it isn't common; in fact, common sense is uncommonly rare. One need look no further that the mental gyrations both laypersons and experts alike go through to provide convoluted logic that somehow abolishing the Electoral College and allowing each eligible voter to have one vote, can possibly do more harm than good. The entire issue is a no-brainer. However, this hasn't stopped a plethora of political analysts from producing the same sorry rhetoric over and over. And it is all in vain.

There is no valid argument for perpetuating the antiquated Electoral College. Yet there doesn't need to be. We are stuck with the Electoral College regardless whether everyone agrees it should be abolished or not. Our country is stuck in an endless cycle of political inertia. Every four years thoughtful persons may contemplate that the ridiculous way we choose the highest office in the country, the Presidency of the United States, makes no logical sense whatsoever. But within days after the election is over, or perhaps weeks if the winner of the most Electoral votes didn't get the majority of popular votes, the issue fades into obscurity, and only the most die-hard debaters really care. This is certainly insufficient interest to ever compel a Constitutional Amendment that could change anything. Consequently, the Electoral College is an albatross destined to forever hang around the neck of democracy, stinking up the place and choking off the ideal that every voting citizen has the same equal vote.

Of course, the Electoral College is just one way to choose a President. We could revert to the medieval ideal of Camelot, and have whoever can pull a sword out of a stone declared the true King and leader of the country. Another idea is have the top two political contenders for Presidency battle it out in a Saturday afternoon wrestling bout. Or perhaps it would be better for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to flip a newly minted Eagle embossed gold dollar; heads Obama wins; tails it's John McCain. Think of all the money that could be saved not having to finance political races! Then again, why not literally draw straws to determine the winner? This smacks of good old fashioned Americana. Or better still, why not really save the country money and simply offer the Presidency for sale by auctioning it off to the highest bidder, with all the proceeds going directly to the US Treasury? Politicians are already buying elections, but this would simply keep everything above board and out in the open.

The only thing that really matters is that the transition of Presidential power is smooth and peaceful, not that it represent some so-called will of the people. If we wanted to do that, all we would have to do is award the Presidency to whichever candidate got the most votes.

That, of course is not happening now. I live in South Carolina. I get mad when people talk about State's rights. A State doesn't have rights. Only people can have rights, providing neither the State nor Federal Government doesn't deny such rights. State's rights is a code-word for denying rights to the people in a state by the state.

For example, my right to cast my choice for President was denied to me both in 2000, 2004, and 2008. In 2000, I wanted Al Gore to be President. Did my vote help Al Gore, even a little? No! It was stolen from me, and given to George Bush. In 2004, I wanted John Kerry to be President. Did my vote help John Kerry? No! It was stolen from me and given to George Bush. In 2008, I wanted Barak Obama to be President. Did my vote help elect Barak Obama? No! It was stolen from me and given to John McCain. Simply because South Carolina is a Republican stronghold, I have no say in the election of our nation's President. For that, I had better move to Florida or Ohio.

Obviously I preferred the Democratic candidate in the last three elections. But this unjustifiable denial of voting rights was perpetuated around the country. There were millions of people in California, Illinois, New York, and Ohio who wanted John McCain to be President. Their votes may have been counted, but once counted they were given to Barak Obama, not John McCain.

This is nuts. Either we believe in majority rule based on democratic elections, or we don't. The myth has been perpetuated for decades that somehow small states benefit more because of the Electoral College. If true, this still wouldn't be fair, but it isn't even true. In fact, the voting power of a citizen living in a large state is several times greater than that of someone living in a small state. Yet even then, we must remember, this rigged game is fraught with risks. If you live in a big state like New York, Florida, or California you only benefit from that state's electoral voter count IF you agree with the majority of voters. Otherwise, your state's increased electoral clout goes against you.

There is one and only one reason for keeping the Electoral College. People are afraid of change. No matter how bad things are, there is a certain comfort in the familiar. Now matter how promising an improvement may be, there is fear of the unknown and untried. Collectively our country suffers from a hardening of the attitudes. Yet for those would-be protectors of the Constitution who steadfastly defend the most embarrassing institution in our system of government, the Electoral College, have no fear; it is not your logic that persuades anyone to keep this political monstrosity; it is irrational xenophobia mixed with apathy, and a dash nostalgia; that guarantees that Americans are more concerned with how they get to choose who will be the next American Idol than how they get to choose their President.

I confess this sounds cynical, but it wasn't always so. When I was still a Senior in high school I became obsessed with the optimistic idea of electoral reform. I studied the issue extensively and soon became such an expert I was invited to discuss the issue with the League of Women Voters. I converted my research into an A+ for my American Government class, with a paper entitled A History of the Problems of the Electoral College. I concluded my paper with the prediction that without abolishing the electoral college, it was just a matter of time before a president who won the most popular votes would still lose the White House. Of course, thirty years later my prediction became true. But back in 1970 I idealistically believed reason would prevail and a Constitutional Amendment was just around the corner.

My navet began to wane in my first year of college. I decided to major in Political Science and waited impatiently for the time my first Political Science class would address the issue of electoral reform. Eventually our text focused on the Electoral College, but to my dismay, the author perpetrated the same old idea that small states had an electoral advantage. In class, I waited for the right moment and raised my hand.

"Isn't it true," I asked, "That the author was unaware that John Banzhaf III's computer analysis proved mathematically that large states actually have as much as three times the voting power per citizen, than small states?"

To this, the professor simply replied, "Talk to me about it after class."

I couldn't wait for class to be over. Obviously, he thought the rest of the class wouldn't be interested in such an esoteric analysis. However, when the class ended he summarily dismissed me without any discussion whatsoever. Only in hindsight did I realize that I knew more about the subject than he did, and he apparently figured I was just some smart ass kid who tried to make him look foolish. Disillusioned, it wasn't long before I switched majors to Psychology.

Thirty years later I am between jobs and sitting in a computer class, staring at the latest internet news from the 2000 Florida recount. Suddenly I realized that history was repeating itself. The election is still in dispute and just as one man got to decide who would be President in the 1886 election between Tilden and Hayes, this time one woman in Florida, Katherine Harris (an avid Bush supporter,) would determine George W. and not Al Gore, would be the next president. Life is full of disappointments. Sometimes your team wins, and sometimes your team loses. But it is one thing if your team loses fair and square, and quite another for your team to lose because the game was rigged.

Amazingly there are still people who insist that the Electoral College somehow prevents presidential elections from turning into controversial fiascos, when history has clearly shown this obsolete institution greatly increases the risk of such disasters.

Still, just for the sake of argument, I wonder why it is that nowhere else in the world where the leader is chosen by direct popular vote, doesn't anyone suggest they scrap such a ridiculous democratic premise and replace it with an American-style Electoral College, where some people's votes are taken away and given to the candidate they didn't want.

It is now March 2009. One of the lowest-rated Presidents in American history has been replaced by the first Afro-American President. Yet regardless of whether you think George W. Bush is to blame for America's current severe economic recession or not, one fact remains indisputable: George W. Bush would have never been elected President in the first place, had our Constitution provided that each voter has one vote that is counted equally and fairly, regardless of which state they are voting in. Yet the truth is, after almost three months into a new administration, no one any longer cares how we elect our president, except for me, and (at least I hope by now) you.

Learn more about this author, Stephen Dreyfus.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.