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.