The Electoral College & Why It's Stupid

If you were watching election night coverage you may have noticed that even after Obama was projected the winner Romney was still ahead in the popular vote. Of course after all the votes were tallied Obama was up by a 3 million vote margin, but this shows a much closer race than the Electoral College numbers convey. This led to a sudden distaste for the Electoral system among certain Fox News talking heads. (Sean Hannity, however, said that we should keep it in place because abolishing it would actually lead to more democrats voting in states like New York and California. Big fan of democracy, I see.) And even though I thought they were being a little whiny that night I have to say I agree with them. It’s about time we get rid of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College, in the very first few elections, was a way to keep the common people from directly electing a president. The uneducated masses were not to be trusted with such an important decision, even if they were white enough and male enough and land-owning enough to vote. But obviously the elite College chose well. Eventually, as communication improved and the number of people allowed to vote increased, the system became what it is today: The popular vote in each state is tallied and that state’s assigned number of votes (depending on its population) is given to one candidate or the other. And most of the time it works just fine. Except when it doesn’t.

The first time was the vital election of 1876. The South was under post-Civil War military reconstruction and the North had dominated politics for over a decade. So when the election results came in there was an obvious problem. The Democrat, the Southerner, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by 2 million and also had a leg up in the Electoral College, but 20 electoral votes were still in dispute. Conveniently these 20 votes would give Hayes the narrowest of victories over Tilden: one electoral vote. So, the powers that be whipped up a little something known as the Compromise of 1877, handing the 20 disputed votes and the presidency over to Hayes. In return, military reconstruction was ended in the South, effectively reversing any progress made for African Americans in the years since the Civil War.


The Electoral College results of 1876. Wow - imagine a time when California was worth less than Maine!

Without the Electoral College Tilden would have won—there would have been nothing to debate, no compromise to make—and arguably full rights for blacks would have been achieved much sooner.

If you’re not willing to amend the Constitution punishing the Electoral College for its past mistakes then let’s move into what this system actually means for democracy today.

The Electoral College means that not everyone’s vote counts. It’s that simple. And call me crazy but I believe that in a democracy everyone’s vote should count. And equally. Considering we’ve just gone through an election I can safely assume you’re sick of hearing about Ohio. Think for a second how much money was spent in that state, how many times the candidates visited it—and how much it actually did matter to the outcome. Now think about this: If the Electoral College is abolished you won’t ever again hear the word “Ohio” so many times it will make you want to puke. I know. Just take a second to let that sink in.

Then there’s what I like to call the Republican-in-California Effect. The best example of this is, obviously, a republican living in California. They voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney and every other republican candidate, but since the state they live in happens to be a solid blue state their vote never actually counts. They might as well not have even voted. And I’d guess a lot of them don’t. It’d be downright depressing! And there goes a whopping 55 points to the Democrat. Every four years. Without fail. This also holds true to Democrats living in Texas. Or the five or six of them living in North Dakota. It’s not fair to those people that they should have to move to cast a meaningful ballot for president. A switch to a pure, raw popular vote would, I believe, increase voter turnout and give everyone that nice, mushy feeling that they actually have a voice.

Also it’s arguable that it would dilute the effect of things like SuperPACs on elections; they wouldn’t be as effective if they couldn’t concentrate their message in battleground states. In fact, it’d be less likely that the unpredictable flukes democrats were worried about this time around (such as Hurricane Sandy, or certain Republican governors’ sudden fixation on voter fraud) would have any real effect if it weren’t for the Electoral College.

I will say that this change would make presidential strategy a nightmare—until they figure it out at least. The key would be voter turnout, and it’s true that candidates would probably end up focusing most of their attention on big cities and their other strongholds, but… that’s still better than freaking Ohio.

It might be naïve to think that such a monumental change to our Constitution would be possible, but we have an amendment process for a reason. So let’s use it and take another step toward a more perfect union.

The Answer to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Recently my home state of Minnesota voted down the proposed Marriage Amendment (the first state to do so, might I add… I’m so proud!), but same-sex marriage is still illegal here. Just less illegal, I guess. Anyway, the occasion got me thinking about this issue and I just had to write something about it. This is not an idea that I came up with—in fact, it’s one shared by a growing number of people. It’s an idea that I believe would at the very least make same-sex marriage a non-governmental problem. Which would really cool things down.

Minnesota Marriage Amendment

Currently, a marriage is a legal union of two people. But it’s also a deeply religious thing for a lot of Americans. And it should not be both. Think about it. The government doesn’t regulate baptisms or funerals; it instead gives out birth certificates and death certificates. Purely secular documents, unattached to the often accompanying religious ceremonies. You know, good old separation of church and state. This is what should be done with marriage in this country.

The government should only give civil unions—to any two people (or more potentially) who want them and meet whatever requirements are in place. This would be strictly for financial and legal purposes. It would have nothing to do with sex. Just the legal and financial rights that traditionally accompany a marriage.

Now, if a couple isn’t particularly religious, they could stop there. They’d have all the benefits. But the marriage ceremonies and certificates would be given solely by churches and other licensed people (let’s say Elvis, in Las Vegas). You would first have to enter into a civil union with your desired partner, but after that you could obtain a “marriage” through whichever church will give you one. There would have to be laws though to protect a church’s right to deny marriage to whomever it wishes, but since a marriage would just be an intangible ceremony with no rights attached to it (like a baptism or confirmation), it’s unlikely people will get too worked up about it.

And wouldn’t that be great? A United States where we can finally take the touchy subject of marriage out of the hands of the government?

Although if a church can marry whomever it wants (as long as they can get a civil union) there will be concerns about how marriage won’t mean anything. But a marriage means something different to everyone, and if you want it to mean something special to you it shouldn’t matter what other people are doing—focus on your own life for God’s sake! Make your marriage mean something.

As for those concerned about slippery slopes and polygamy and marrying farm animals, well… we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. I guess I’ll leave you with this: have some faith in democracy. If there’s a time when the majority of Americans wants polygamy or interspecies marriage… that’s the price we pay for the best system of government the world’s ever seen. Democracy can be messy, and it’s certainly imperfect, but it hasn’t failed us yet.