Spring Break
Electoral College Disenfranchises, Cheats Voters
Greg Pivarnik
Issue date: 2/12/08 Section: Commentary
The Electoral College has been around for over 200 years and it is safe to say that it has outlived its purpose. Its inherent disenfranchisement has led to some despicable voter turnouts, even in the most hotly contested and important elections. Despite the fact that Republicans and Democrats would not change the current electoral procedure because of the risk of diminishing their own powers, there are potential voting alternatives. However, there are those that staunchly defend the current electoral process.
The aspect of presidential elections that needs to change is the separation of the electorate by states. The president is the only national office which is voted on by the entire populace of the United States. Candidates try to win states instead of appealing to the nation as whole. The minority party in some states, such as Democrats in Texas or Republicans in Connecticut, end up of having no say in the election process because most states are all-or-nothing with regards to distributing delegates. Instead of competing on a state-by-state basis, candidates should be forced to compete on a national scale. This means instead of electing the president by the Electoral College, it should be done by the popular vote. In this system all votes would count evenly. If a candidate obtained more votes that another in a state, they would not win all the delegates, or even the sole support of that state. Instead they would win the number of votes that they accumulated. This would make the presidential election a truly national election.
There are some problems people have with this type of voting method. The first is tradition and the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted a system that has withstood the test of time. However, tradition is no excuse to keep a broken system. The elimination of a state-by-state electoral process also violates what some believe to be the United States' federalist principles. In a sense, an election by popular vote impedes on states' rights to institute their own election procedures. The United States was founded on a principle of federalism, a nation of loosely aligned states in national government, as a way to prevent the consolidation of power into a central government. However, federalist principles do not ensure a fair and just election procedure, especially for those of the minority party in a single state. The changing of the voting method is not something that would profoundly impact the rights of all states. It will ensure that all the votes are counted. States will still have the rights to elect senators and representatives to serve their interests. A truly national election will not impede states' rights to make their own laws and govern their people as they see fit in certain circumstances. Instead it will combat disenfranchisement by ensuring all citizens that their votes are actually counted.
The aspect of presidential elections that needs to change is the separation of the electorate by states. The president is the only national office which is voted on by the entire populace of the United States. Candidates try to win states instead of appealing to the nation as whole. The minority party in some states, such as Democrats in Texas or Republicans in Connecticut, end up of having no say in the election process because most states are all-or-nothing with regards to distributing delegates. Instead of competing on a state-by-state basis, candidates should be forced to compete on a national scale. This means instead of electing the president by the Electoral College, it should be done by the popular vote. In this system all votes would count evenly. If a candidate obtained more votes that another in a state, they would not win all the delegates, or even the sole support of that state. Instead they would win the number of votes that they accumulated. This would make the presidential election a truly national election.
There are some problems people have with this type of voting method. The first is tradition and the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted a system that has withstood the test of time. However, tradition is no excuse to keep a broken system. The elimination of a state-by-state electoral process also violates what some believe to be the United States' federalist principles. In a sense, an election by popular vote impedes on states' rights to institute their own election procedures. The United States was founded on a principle of federalism, a nation of loosely aligned states in national government, as a way to prevent the consolidation of power into a central government. However, federalist principles do not ensure a fair and just election procedure, especially for those of the minority party in a single state. The changing of the voting method is not something that would profoundly impact the rights of all states. It will ensure that all the votes are counted. States will still have the rights to elect senators and representatives to serve their interests. A truly national election will not impede states' rights to make their own laws and govern their people as they see fit in certain circumstances. Instead it will combat disenfranchisement by ensuring all citizens that their votes are actually counted.
Be the first to comment on this story