The Bipartisan Case for Amending the Electoral College | The Odyssey Online
Start writing a post
Politics and Activism

The Bipartisan Case for Amending the Electoral College

The current system of electing the President of the United States fails voters on both sides of the aisle.

77
The Bipartisan Case for Amending the Electoral College

The 2020 election is less than a year away, with the Iowa caucuses in just a couple of months, and it is still unclear who will be going up against Donald Trump in November. The Democratic party is fractioned into those concerned about electability and those championing a progressive agenda, and the Republican party is fighting with all the strength they can muster to hold onto control. The campaigns are in full swing, with Democrats attacking Trump from every angle they can think of and Trump bargaining with the American people to give him a second term. Impeachment is dominating the news cycle, leaving many in the middle saying, "Why impeach when we can just vote him out in 2020?"

Here's the secret they don't want you to know.

The 2020 election is already rigged in favor of Trump.

Not because he asked Ukraine for investigations, or because of voter suppression measures in place and being passed across the country, or because of the "silent majority."

The scam is our electoral system itself.

The electoral college is as old as our country itself, scripted in the Constitution in 1787. But a lot has changed in nearly two and a half centuries, including the very principles on which the electoral college was created. In 1787, slaves counted as three-fifths of a person; women, minorities, and non-land-owning men could not vote; and the general public was blissfully unaware of politics, including presidential elections. The electoral college worked in 18th-century, newly-founded America. But how does it work in the 21st century?

The electoral college was a compromise. One group of the founding fathers did not want Congress to elect the president because they were worried about corruption, so they argued for a popular vote. The other group was concerned about letting the general population elect a president, as they were mostly uninformed about politics. After days of arguing, the founding fathers compromised on neither. Each state would have a certain number of electors who would then in turn elect the president. These electors were trusted by the people to make an informed decision. But over time, media evolved and the general public became more and more informed. The electoral college shifted closer to a popular vote, where the population cast their votes for the president and vice president, rather than just for an elector. But then in the 19th century, most states moved to the winner-takes-all system now associated with the electoral college. And that is where it all went wrong.

When the electoral college was created, there were no political parties, and certainly none of the founding fathers envisioned a future where America was ruled by a two-party system. As parties began to develop and increase in power, electors lost their independence and became bound to their political party. At this point, electors were mostly chosen by each state's legislature. Seeing an opportunity in this, many state legislatures shifted their system so all their electoral votes went to the candidate with the plurality, rather than splitting the votes proportionally, ensuring the candidate of the party in power would receive the entirety of that state's votes. That is how the winner-takes-all system in place today came to be – a product of a partisan scheme to stay in power.

Not only is the system itself rigged, but it is now incapable of fixing itself. The winner-takes-all system would have much less of an impact if electoral votes were appropriated proportionally. However, many smaller states have a lower population-to-elector ratio, meaning each person's vote has more value. In the states that have the most electoral votes, like California, Texas, New York and Florida, there is a disproportionately high population-to-elector ratio – there is only one elector for every 650,000 people. Meanwhile, states like Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota may only have three or four electoral votes, but they have one elector for about every 200,000 people – so if you live in Wyoming, your vote counts nearly four times as much as someone living in California. It may seem like a relatively easy fix to just have an equal population-to-elector ratio in each state, but the number of electoral votes is determined by a state's number of House representatives, and a constitutional amendment in 1929 capped the total number of representatives at 435. Without a state's number of representatives being able to increase with the growing population, their electoral votes also will not increase proportionally. The allocation of electoral votes is updated every ten years with the census, but the total number of electoral votes does not change; votes are shifted from states with the least population growth or net loss to states with the most growth. However, this reallocation does not completely account for all population growth. As long as the number of House representatives is capped at 435, electoral votes will never be equally weighted among states.

Aside from the unequal weighting of electoral votes, the electoral college does not take into account the margin by which a candidate wins. For example, both Florida and New York have 29 electoral votes. In 2016, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won New York by over 20 points, while Republican candidate Donald Trump won Florida by just 1 point, yet they both received the same number of electoral votes. Historically, the Democratic-leaning states with the most electoral votes vote Democrat by a much larger margin than the Republican-leaning states with the most electoral votes. The Democratic Party has three major electoral strongholds in California, New York and Illinois at 55, 29 and 20 electoral votes, respectively. Each state has voted for the Democratic candidate by a margin of more than 15% in every election in recent history. In contrast, the only major electoral stronghold the Republican Party has is Texas at 36 electoral votes; however, Texas voted for Republican Donald Trump by only a 9% margin in 2016. Every other Republican-dominant state has only 11 electoral votes or fewer. The electoral college does not take margins of victory into account, deepening the divide between an electoral victory and popular victory.

The impact of the electoral college means each presidential election comes down to just a few key swing states. A popular argument in favor of the electoral college is it gives more of a voice to rural America, and that the big cities should not get to choose a president for the entirety of the nation, since what rural areas need is very different from what urban areas need. This is true; without the electoral college, candidates would have no reason to campaign in rural areas or give any thought to them in making policy proposals. But the reverse is also true. With the electoral college, rural America, specifically a handful of swing states, chooses the president. Why should people in those few states get to decide who runs the entire country? The most reasonable thing to do is to amend the electoral college. Instead of basing the number of electoral votes on the House of Representatives, have an equal population-to-elector ratio in each state. Modify the winner-takes-all system to model the system in Maine and Nebraska, where a certain portion of their electoral votes are given to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote and the remainder of the votes are given proportionally. This way, rural Republican areas in traditionally Democratic states, such as northern California, or urban Democratic areas in traditionally Republican states, such as big cities in Texas, will all have their voices heard, without alienating any sector of the country, and the majority of the nation will pick the president.

Wanting fair and balanced elections should not be a partisan effort. Republicans should want to change the system, even though it traditionally benefits them, and Democrats should not want to abolish the system just because it puts them at a disadvantage. Both parties need to come together and recognize the electoral college as it stands does not accurately represent the country and come up with a system that does.

On the web:

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.pht...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ma...

https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college...

https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map...

https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/timeline/margin-of-victory/

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
Drake
Hypetrak

1. Nails done hair done everything did / Oh you fancy huh

You're pretty much feeling yourself. New haircut, clothes, shoes, everything. New year, new you, right? You're ready for this semester to kick off.

Keep Reading...Show less
7 Ways to Make Your Language More Transgender and Nonbinary Inclusive

With more people becoming aware of transgender and non-binary people, there have been a lot of questions circulating online and elsewhere about how to be more inclusive. Language is very important in making a space safer for trans and non-binary individuals. With language, there is an established and built-in measure of whether a place could be safe or unsafe. If the wrong language is used, the place is unsafe and shows a lack of education on trans and non-binary issues. With the right language and education, there can be more safe spaces for trans and non-binary people to exist without feeling the need to hide their identities or feel threatened for merely existing.

Keep Reading...Show less
Blair Waldorf
Stop Hollywood

For those of you who have watched "Gossip Girl" before (and maybe more than just once), you know how important of a character Blair Waldorf is. Without Blair, the show doesn’t have any substance, scheme, or drama. Although the beginning of the show started off with Blair’s best friend Serena returning from boarding school, there just simply is no plot without Blair. With that being said, Blair’s presence in the show in much more complex than that. Her independent and go-getter ways have set an example for "Gossip Girl" fans since the show started and has not ended even years after the show ended. Blair never needed another person to define who she was and she certainly didn’t need a man to do that for her. When she envisioned a goal, she sought after it, and took it. This is why Blair’s demeanor encompasses strong women like her.

Keep Reading...Show less
Entertainment

20 Feelings Anyone Who Loves To Sing Has

Sometimes, we just can't help the feelings we have

1116
singing
Cambio

Singing is something I do all day, every day. It doesn't matter where I am or who's around. If I feel like singing, I'm going to. It's probably annoying sometimes, but I don't care -- I love to sing! If I'm not singing, I'm probably humming, sometimes without even realizing it. So as someone who loves to sing, these are some of the feelings and thoughts I have probably almost every day.

Keep Reading...Show less
success
Degrassi.Wikia

Being a college student is one of the most difficult task known to man. Being able to balance your school life, work life and even a social life is a task of greatness. Here's an ode to some of the small victories that mean a lot to us college students.

Keep Reading...Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments