Dismantle The Electoral College

Dismantle The Electoral College
John R. Petrilli


WE SHOULD DISMANTLE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BECAUSE THE VOTER PLAYING
FIELD HAS CHANGED.

The electoral college was originally set up by Constitutional co-author Thomas Jefferson in the 1800’s to insure that the educated segment of the population had the greatest say in the election of the nation’s leaders. The rural population back then was largely uneducated so Jefferson gave more electoral votes to states that had more institutions of higher learning. Today that equation no longer applies. Most Americans are literate, and a large percentage hold post-high school degrees, no matter what state they happen to live in. Every American has within his or her reach a television, radio, or newspaper, and rural Americans are just as educated and informed as any other group in the country.

WE SHOULD DISMANTLE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BECAUSE IT CREATES AN
IMBALANCE IN VOTER INFLUENCE.

For the longest time I sensed something intrinsically unfair about the electoral college. Last night while attending a political party election night rally it suddenly dawned on me what that inequity actually was. It’s really quite simple. A voter in a state with a high number of electoral votes has more influence on deciding an election than does a voter from a state with less electoral votes. For instance, when the winning candidate is elected it’s because he invariably carries states that have large numbers of electoral votes. So a voter in a state with significantly less electoral votes ends up exerting far less influence on the outcome of an election.


WE SHOULD DISMANTLE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BECAUSE CANDIDATES WITH
THE MOST MONEY CAN TARGET BATTLEGROUND STATES, GIVING THEM AN
UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER LESS-FUNDED OPPONENTS.

Campaign finance reform gets a lot of talk but seemingly very little traction when push comes to shove. Witness Barack Obama’s reneging on his promise to only use government campaign funds. Once he cut loose, he raised a war chest of multiplied millions of dollars that totally dwarfed the McCain campaign in terms of financial capability. This overwhelming empowerment likely made the winning difference in an election where the two candidates ended up being separated by only ten percent of the popular votes. The way that this played out is clear. Obama zeroed-in on the battleground states and flooded them with a vast army of paid staff and paid television commercials to get out the vote for him. That kind of political avalanche tipped the scales completely to his advantage, and, in the end, carried him to victory.

But what if EVERY state’s influence was based purely on its registered voter population? No candidate could effectively blanket the entire nation with billions of dollars, and the playing field would be far more level than it is right now under the electoral college format. THAT is what true democracy would look like, and THAT is the direction the American people need to be moving toward from this point forward.


WE SHOULD DISMANTLE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BECAUSE IT CAN AND HAS
AWARDED THE PRESIDENCY TO CANDIDATES WHO DIDN’T WIN THE SUPPORT OF
THE MAJORITY (THE POPULAR VOTE).

When it comes right down to it, the electoral college is actually an extrapolated version of a true democracy. In a true democracy the citizens would and should directly elect their leaders. But the current arrangement with the electoral vote interrupts and often radically alters that straightforward process. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote, but George Bush won the electoral vote, so George Bush was awarded the presidency. This just doesn’t wash with me (Republican not withstanding), or with many I’ve spoken to. We have the technology and informed citizenry that allows us to rely solely on the direct vote of the people. We need no other “go-between” type of body to decide who we want to lead us. It’s just that simple. Run the election, count the vote, and the winner takes all. Period.