Only a Liberal…

The 2000 election illustrated the rules of the electoral college in national elections, which sparked much controversy. It also illustrated the appalling lack of understanding of why we have the electoral college.

I’ll use a football situation to explain how ridiculous the “popular vote” argument is. Pittsburgh beat Seattle in the Feb 2006 Superbowl, 21-10. Picture Seattle protesting the game because they gained more yards than Pittsburgh, but weren’t rewarded with the proper number of points. Seattle gained 396 yards, while Pittsburgh gained only 339, yet Pittsburgh was named the winner, 21-10. But the winner of football games isn’t decided by yards, its decided by points.

The founders were concerned that a popular vote would essentially give the power of national elections to urban states and large states. No candidate would ever campaign on or consider the issues of states with rural areas or in smaller states. They would also spend more time in states where they were more likely to “run up the score.” Candidates would spend more time in those states than they currently do. The electoral college system essentially forces them to campaign in more states than a popular vote system.

Of course, the current system forces candidates to focus primarily on “swing” states, which isn’t ideal either. So which way is better? I think the two systems arguably cancel each other out on the issue of campaigning focus. So other issues should be the topic of discussion. In a country of 50 states, the smaller states should be relevant nationally.

There is also one unavoidable logistical reason. A nationwide recount in a popular vote is not feasible. The drama in Florida was one state. Any close election where the popular vote decided would put the election results in limbo, as we awaited vote counts in all 50 states, certainly for more than the two months between election and inauguration.

References:

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_ecemail.html
http://www.interocitor.com/archives/000159.html