2004 Year in Review

Graduate the Electoral College

The 2000 election showed the problems that the Electoral College can cause in the presidential elections. It is time to change it.

No one can forget the hilarious sight of Florida election officials holding up paper cards to the light, looking for chads or bumps or holes. In the national totals, Bush got 47.8% of the vote. Gore barely squeaked by with 48.4% of the vote. With over one hundred million votes, it all came down to a few poorly punched votes in a few counties in Florida.

Many Democrats believe that the 2000 election was fraudulent. They believe that Al Gore won the popular vote and that the election was stolen by the Supreme Court for George Bush. My belief is that the election was essentially a tie. The Supreme Court made a dubious decision (elections are generally left to the States), but they were constitutionally responsible. But, there is no doubt that many voters felt that the election process was less than satisfactory.

The problem seems to be with the Electoral College. Instead of electing presidents directly, which would have made Gore president, we actually vote for electors. These electors then vote for the president. Each state gets the amount of electors which are calculated by the total of the state's two Senators and its count of members of the House of Representatives. Illinois, for example, has 22 electors. New Mexico has five.

Under this system it is winner take all. If a candidate wins a state by one vote, for instance, he or she gets the entire flock of electoral votes. This has had some unfortunate consequences. For instance, states like Illinois, which are expected to go solidly for John Kerry in the next election, are virtually ignored by both candidates, since it doesn't matter if Kerry gets 51% or 55%. Other states that are unlikely to be close include such large states as Texas, California and New York.

So, here in New Mexico, which is very competitive and called a battleground state, we are inundated with political ads (maybe this is not much of a benefit!) and personal appearances by the candidates, while you are (thankfully) going to see less ads and less personal appearances. Other battleground states include Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think this system means, in effect, that your vote in Illinois means less than my vote in New Mexico,

I think a better solution would be to change the Electoral College so that each candidate gets the same percentage of electoral votes as his or her percentage of votes. So, for example, Illinois would have given Gore 12 electoral votes and Bush 10 electoral votes in the 2000 election.

Florida would not have been a problem in 2000 with this system. Bush would have received 13 electoral votes and Gore 12. But, Gore would have won that very close election anyway, by receiving 269 total electoral votes to Bush's 268. A recount in any state would only at most change one vote per state. And you'd never have a Presidential candidate win the popular vote, but get elected anyway.

The other change I think we should make is to have a runoff election between the top two candidates if neither candidate gets over 50% of the vote. This would have been the case in the last three elections, but it would make sure that the voters got the candidate that most of them wanted (although I think that in the last election most voters wanted neither Gore nor Bush - they would have elected John McCain if given the chance).

A case could be made for abolishing the Electoral College completely, but I think there is an advantage in not having the vote automatic. What if a President was assassinated or dies a natural death or is found guilty of some horrible scandal before the inauguration? The Electoral College allows the electors to choose someone else. Keeping the Electoral College would also continue the small advantage that the smaller states have since each state gets two Senators regardless of population.

What do you think?

by John Legler, Guest Columnist
July 13, 2004