| Is it time to junk the Electoral College? By formulating | | | | be completely ignored. That is especially true for |
| such an arcane method of electing the executive, the | | | | Democrats. The parties would spend their resources |
| founding fathers hoped to insulate the presidency | | | | in those areas where they are already strong. Political |
| from popular emotions while, at the same time, | | | | professionals know it's easier to expand the |
| protecting thinly populated states from domination by | | | | percentage of your vote in places you're already |
| the great cities. The College works by having the | | | | ahead. That is seen today. Republicans don't waste |
| state legislatures pick people to vote for the | | | | their resources in mainly African-American areas. Nor |
| President. Each state has the number of electors as | | | | do the Democrats campaign in strong Republican |
| it has representatives to the congress, both House | | | | precincts. The process has become longer and more |
| and Senate. These were to be the most able people | | | | expensive. But, that's not the end. Would a party |
| of the state...in theory. What quickly evolved was | | | | want its candidate to be one with only, say, 20% of |
| that each party would nominate a slate of electors. | | | | the vote? Probably not. A national run-off primary will |
| The political party that won the state's popular vote | | | | evolve to insure one candidate wins 50%.. Electoral |
| would have their slate of electors get the right to | | | | college map with numbers electoral college map with |
| vote for President. A "win" was considered 50% plus | | | | numberscollege supply list |
| one vote This has been the method of electing our | | | | Another problem now rears its ugly head...the national |
| Presidents since the founding of the republic. There | | | | election. Recall that the Electoral College and the |
| have been consequences not intended by the | | | | winner-take-all system forced the parties to |
| founders. They have shaped what kind of party | | | | campaign state by state. Since only a one-vote |
| system we have. The structure of elections has | | | | majority was required to carry that state, third |
| determined the ways campaigns are run. They have | | | | parties found it impossible to exist. They could never |
| even affected the way in which our government is | | | | have an influence. Not so with a popular vote |
| organized. The "winner-take-all" system also shapes | | | | election. Here a small party getting fifteen or twenty |
| the campaign. Since only one vote more than the | | | | percent could have a large impact on who is elected. |
| competing party is required, there is no reason to | | | | In fact, the vote could be spread among several |
| give campaign resources to states where a particular | | | | small political parties. Would the nation be content |
| candidate is well ahead or too far behind to compete. | | | | with the President being elected with, say, 30% of |
| The battlegrounds are those states that could go | | | | the popular vote? Maybe not. There is a way around |
| either way. In a tight campaign the votes of small | | | | the problem. The old One-Party-Democratic-South |
| states become critical in putting together an electoral | | | | solved it. It's called the run-off election. Now there |
| majority. Because a state's entire electoral vote is | | | | are four possible national campaigns: the first national |
| determined by which party gets one vote more than | | | | primary, the run-off national primary, the national |
| the next, there is no advantage in voting for a party | | | | election, and the run-off national election. Another |
| that will come short of that goal. Ten percent means | | | | effect is one that strikes at the government itself. |
| no vote at all. It makes sense then that we have | | | | It's likely that a multi-party system would evolve with |
| two parties because that's the surest way to win | | | | elected officials from many different small ideological |
| the privilege of casting the electoral vote. While third | | | | groups. How would the government work? Our |
| parties might have influence at the state level, it is | | | | national government is organized around two parties. |
| almost impossible to have an effect at the | | | | Could it accommodate coalitions? There is no way to |
| Presidential level. A popular-vote election means | | | | tell. All of the governments that have multi-party |
| Presidential candidates no longer visiting small, closely | | | | systems are Cabinet governments. There are built in |
| contested states. It reduces their influence. The | | | | mechanisms for bringing down the government and |
| electoral wars will be waged only in the large cities. | | | | holding new elections when the governing coalition |
| The changes don't stop there. Remember, we now | | | | loses public support. Our constitution has no provision |
| nominate candidates by state primaries. Electing | | | | for such a circumstance. It's possible the popular |
| people by a national popular vote would cause those | | | | election of the President would force the U. S. to |
| to merge into a national primary. After all, if states no | | | | completely change its government from a Presidential |
| longer elect the President, why should they nominate | | | | to a Cabinet form. Some people argue that would be |
| the candidate? There's a whole new national | | | | a good thing. It would, they say, make the |
| campaign. college map college map A popular election | | | | government more responsive. They're right. But, it |
| of the President would change that. No longer would | | | | would also make it unstable. Our constitution creates |
| a national campaign be necessary. A President, | | | | government that is slow to respond because the |
| political scientists tell us, could be elected in the six | | | | framers wanted ideas to have time for thorough |
| largest TV. markets. Campaigns would be waged in | | | | review and debate before they were made into |
| the large cities and their suburbs. Rural areas would | | | | national policy. |