How the Electoral College is inherently unfair
The New York Times offers an excellent graphical representation of how the Electoral College gives voters in some states (Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and District of Columbia) far more influence in deciding who will be the President of the United States than voters in other states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, New York, Washington, Michigan, Indiana).
For example, in Wyoming 134,783 voters equals one Electoral College vote while in Florida 479,878 voters equals one Electoral College vote.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
For example, in Wyoming 134,783 voters equals one Electoral College vote while in Florida 479,878 voters equals one Electoral College vote.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
Powered by Blogger
3 Comments:
I'm just totally baffled by this point of view. Either the author never learned US History or just doesn't understand the current system or just doesn't care.
The electoral college system was set up because the states themselves elect the president, not the populace at large. The fact that Wyoming and Florida have different weight applied to their electoral votes is on purpose and by design and is more fair than if we have direct popular votes of the president. The electoral college gives more weight to smaller populace states which, I would argue, makes the system inherently MORE fair! It prevents a rich-get-richer circumstance among the states when it comes to electing the president. The whole US Constitution is set up to provide checks and balances against the majority and the electoral college is the ultimate manifestation of that fact.
We have to remember that our republic is a collection of states and the states are who elect the president, not the people themselves. My vote within my own state counts equally as another Minnesota citizen by design. Comparing my vote for president to a vote in another state is an apples-to-oranges comparison and shows a complete lack of understanding of the electoral college system. When it comes to electing the president, votes have different weight due to the size of your state.
If we do move to a direct popular vote for president, then we also need 1) to abolish the US Senate, and 2) abolish the states themselves. With a direct popular election of the president, both of these entities become irrelevant.
The US Senate was the compromise between the small states (like Delaware) and the large states (like New York) when the US Constitution was ratified between 1787 and 1789. It is no mistake that Delaware - the smallest of the 13 original colonies - was the first to ratify the Constitution because of the 'fairness' of the system and that Delaware - with it's tiny population - would have an fair voice in the new government, if unequal voice at that. Without the electoral college concept, the US Senate is merely a redundant legislative body because it is also not based on the populace. The same is true with the states. If everyone is equal across the country, why should different laws apply to different people just because of where they live? If people in Wyoming are equal in representation to people in Florida, then why have laws for each based on the arbitrary state boundaries?
Why is the electoral college system so difficult for you to grasp? If we were talking about taxing the rich to give to the poor, these pages would be filled with author after author waxing ad infinitum about the virtues of such a tax system, but when we do the same with the electoral college it's all of a sudden not fair? You don't have any consistency of logic and I am complete flummoxed by the abject lack of understanding you display with this opinion.
Let me just say, as well, that I think it is wise to stop the insane pursuit of fairness in everything. What you and I perceive as 'fair' will never be the same. Fairness is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. In the end, Life isn't fair - get used to it.
But, then again, I am just a mathematician. I don't read the right books, I don't hang out in coffee shops, and I never went to Harvard, so my opinion doesn't really count.
Thank you Patrick. At least someone is informed.
The founding fathers met a hundred years ago to form a government that is going strong today, adopted by many countries and protects individual rights and freedoms of the states and people. The electoral college has been a point of contention as of late, what with rare instances when the presidential choice does not win the popular vote, most recently being the 2000 election. Many see this as an affront to the people's choice, and call for a straight popular vote system where the president is chosen directly by the people. This at first seems like the logical choice, however the founding fathers designed the voting process as a bicameral electoral system for a couple of very important reasons that are still relevant today, and the use of the electoral college is in fact a safeguard insuring that less populous areas have an influence, and that the chosen president has widespread favor rather than favor only in the most populous states, which would make governing difficult. It protects state sovereignty and fair campaigning and election tactics.
Most of the time the candidate that wins the most popular votes wins the most electoral votes. The instances where this is not the case occur when the popular vote is very close, almost tied. With this situation, the electoral college system causes the candidate with the most widespread support to win the election. This protects the weight of smaller states, and is necessary because if only popular voting was used, candidates would not need to pay any attention to the less populous states, and focus only on winning the populous states. This would cause divides between different states, areas, interests, etc., as James Hillhouse, revolutionary war soldier and senator explains:
The principle of the Constitution, of election by electors, is certainly preferable to all others. . . . [because] Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York, may combine; they may say to the other [smaller] States, we will not vote for your man. . . . [or] the agricultural will be arrayed against the mercantile; the South against the East; the seaboard against the inland.
In conclusion, the electoral college is a necessary system that protects state rights, minority rights, and allows for the president to have widespread approval, easing his ability to govern. It protects base campaigning tactics and discourages disputes. direct voting would cause more recounts, disproportional voting influence, and no effort to take into account the needs of the diverse majority, not just the direct majority.
Post a Comment
<< Home