|
| The Global Freedom Institute |
| The Electoral College: Reform or Eliminate? With the events of the 2000 elections, Bush winning the electoral college by 5 votes and Gore winning the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, it has left some to call for the end of the Electoral College. While this argument is coming from the democrats currently, it is predictable that it would have come from the republicans if the results had come out just the opposite, as some polls predicted. This election could have sent a signal to voters that their votes count. With so many states coming down to less than 10,000 votes, it may have sent a signal to many that every vote means something. That could be key to getting out more voters in the future. Part of the key to global freedom is getting individuals to have their voices heard in the election arena, even if we disagree with their views. Only by allowing all voices to be heard, do we limit the means of government control over us without our consent. Therefore, the more that vote, the better our elections and our country will be. This election did not turn out many more voters than normal overall. However, it did have a higher voter turn out in states where the battle between the two primary candidates ensued. Unfortunately, there were many states where the two primary candidates were not active because a state was considered to be already won or lost by one of the two. In those states, the turn out was either normal or below normal. This seems to indicate that where candidates are actively campaigning, they motivate more voters to vote. They may not do so directly, since many stops are for people that probably would already vote. However, they motivate the people that will carry their cause to the people. Therefore causing an increased turn out for themselves. So the goal is to find ways for the system to give incentive to candidates to campaign in more than a few battleground states. In the case of this election, the benefits of the close races may have been hurt by the perception that their vote doesn't count due to the U.S. Supreme Court decision. In spite of that, the result was better for future voter turn out than if the Electoral College had not existed. Imagine this race without the Electoral College. The headlines could have read "Gore Wins by Close Margin: 500,000 votes." Half a million votes seems overwhelming in terms of the perception that your vote means anything. In Election 2000, only about 45% of the voters that were registered actually voted. That means that 55% of registered voters did not vote. Over half of Americans didn't even make their voice heard. That is very disconcerning. That shortfall of voters could have been due to many different factors that are beyond the scope of this article. However, making races closer in terms of numbers of votes separating candidates, similar to sports adding wild cards, adds interest and possibly desire to vote. It may show individuals that their vote has more of an impact than even they thought. This means a reform rather than an elimination of the Electoral College. The question becomes: What reform is needed? REform should be shaped in terms of a method that maintains fairness of representation, but also makes each and every vote more important in the process. Fairness is important to maintain the credibility of the process. The Proposal The Electoral College should be reformed to more accurately reflect Congress. Each electoral vote should be important, not just individual states with lumps of votes. This means that for every Senator and Representative in Congress, there should be one electoral vote. If a candidate wins a congressional district, they should get one vote. If they win a state, they should get two votes. For example, in California, if Al Gore had won 35 congressional districts, he should have gotten 35 electoral votes. That means that GW Bush would have won 17 congressional districts and received 17 electoral votes. Considering Gore won California, he gets 2 additional electoral votes. That means instead of winning 54 electoral votes by winning California, Gore would have received 37 electoral votes, and Bush would have won 17 in California. This change has a few benefits. First, it maintains the Electoral College which is important to maintaining a voice in the smaller states. Second, it makes each congressional district count for more. By breaking it down into smaller areas for earning an electoral vote, it makes each electoral vote more significant. That, in turn, makes each vote worth more because each vote must be won in each small group of people, rather than over an entire state. That may increase the voter turn out because the voter's decision has more value. Third, it gives the candidates more reason to spend time in each state, even each district, in order to understand the issues that are important to voters. That is preferable to candidates only focusing on battleground states and ignoring all the others as "decided" because they can find a few key electoral votes in many states. Fourth, this also allows third party candidates to gain electoral votes easier by focusing their campaigns on certain key areas. As they begin to gain electoral votes, they can gain momentum for building of alternative political thought. While, they may never see office, they can have an impact on the agendas of both parties, as Ross Perot did on balancing the budget in 1992. While no solution is perfect, this solution offers to maintain the constitutional system of using the Electoral process, as well as, maintains a focus of the voter as significant to the process. While we all found flaw with Florida's "voter's intent" standards, the state has the right idea: it is important to have the will of the voters carried out and the voters are the key to the credibility of the process and our government. -GFI 1/15/01 Back to the main page |
|
|