OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
By Sarah Stodola
---------------------------------------
I have never met anyone
who likes George W. Bush.
Seriously - at least
no one who likes him in the context of the Presidency of the United
States of America. This is
probably because my parents are Democrats and I live in New York City
and most of my friends could be described as "artsy types"
and I attend the New School University, but still.
I know the Friends
of W are out there; I've just never come into personal contact with
them.
So, although Bush fans
must exist, I know for a fact that Bush haters exist, too, and those
in large numbers.
Which
leads me to ask why our country, or at least a large part of it, did
not rise up after the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore won the popular vote,
after all. Bush is our president
only because of the Electoral College (and possibly the incompetence
of the state of Florida). Either
way, if we were a democratic society in the truest sense, Mr. Gore
would be president.
In the ninth grade,
I took a general government class with a teacher named Ms. Goodman. This was where I learned about the three branches
of the Federal Government, the checks and balances, and the Electoral
College.
The truth is, Ms. Goodman
explained, that you can indeed vote for the president. However, after you vote for him, your vote really
only counts in your statewide election, where the votes will be tallied,
and more than likely the winner then receives what amounts to all
the votes from that state.
So, candidate X can
receive 52% of a state's votes and candidate Y 48%, and in the national
election candidate X will receive 100% of the votes. So, was it possible for a candidate to lose
the popular vote, but win the presidency?
You bet it was.
Every kid in the class
was appalled. Ms. Goodman said
that no one had ever bothered to change this system because the popular
winner had never lost the election.
It was basically one of those silly antiquated laws you always
joke about, like how in a few states it's illegal to walk down the
street with an ice-cream cone in your pocket.
No one ever bothered changing the law because its enforcement
never became an issue. If the popular winner ever did lose, she promised,
the system would change in a heartbeat.
In 2000, this is exactly
what happened, except the system didn't change. No one seemed to care. Life was humming along pretty seamlessly for
most of us, so what did it matter who became president?
If the elections had
been held post-9/11, the reaction likely would have been different. As it stands, we did nothing. There were no outcries for reform. No protests.
No rallies. We all just
chuckled at the idea that a relatively inarticulate former cokehead
whose family had bought his way into the Ivy League would be our next
Commander in Chief.
Doing away with the
Electoral College, or at least reforming it, never became a serious
issue in the collective mind of America.
It has, however, become an occasional subject of debate. Proponents of the current system argue that
the current system helps minorities because if they tip the vote in
just one state, they effectively decide all of that state's votes
in the national election.
But, according to the
latest census numbers, minorities make up over 30% of the US population.
In a straight popular vote, their voices would certainly be
heard without the help of the Electoral College.
Proponents also claim
that the Electoral College gives small states a larger voice because
each state is granted the same number of electors as representatives
in Congress (Two Senators plus a number of Representatives based on
population), rather than a number of electors based on population
alone.
I doubt that Wyoming's
three electoral votes, to California's 54, really makes inhabitants
of Wyoming feel as if they have any clout because of those two extra
electors. Never mind that an
inhabitant of Wyoming is in no way entitled to any more clout than
a Californian. Each amounts to exactly one United States citizen.
Finally,
proponents worry that abolishing the Electoral College would threaten
the two-party system.
And they actually say
that as if it would be a bad thing…
I voted for Gore in
2000, instead of a third-party candidate, more as a vote against Bush
than one for Gore. My vote
helped win the popular vote for Gore, but did not prevent Bush from
becoming president. In short, my vote didn't really count.
I wonder how poor Ms.
Goodman is explaining that to her students.
---------------------------------------
Sarah
Stodola is the managing editor of Me Three. She can be contacted
at sstodola@methree.net.
ME THREE