The Electoral College, and other voting anomalies

      The United States' Electoral College (EC) system for selecting the President has always been controversial.  In our nation's history, the EC has conflicted with the popular vote five times - two of those occurring just since 2000.  And with the 2020 election around the corner, there's talk again of abolishing the EC.

     There are many arguments both for and against keeping the EC versus electing the President with a straight popular vote.  In today's article, I will attempt to pick some of these arguments, and offer up a totally radical alternative to the whole crazy scheme.

     What really is the ultimate effect of selecting the President via EC versus popular vote?  The biggest factor is that each state's number of EC votes is based on the total of its Senate AND House representation.  It's the SENATE part of that equation which is most significant, because every state has the same number of Senate seats (two).  That means that in smaller states, each voter's vote carries more weight.  Thus, if the candidates receive about the same number of popular votes, but most of one candidate's votes come from SMALL states, then he/she has an electoral advantage.  

      However, targeting smaller states is not necessarily the optimum winning strategy.  Big states still have more electoral votes, after all.  So in addition to population size, the prudent candidate should focus on "swing" states where the vote preference is closely balanced.  It's where the state BORDER line falls that really drives everything.  Likewise, the strategic voter who wants his/her vote to count the most should pack up and move to a "swing" state.  In fact, if your state heavily favors a particular candidate, then the EC system does not give you much incentive to even bother to vote at all.

      So which is better - EC or popular vote?

     The whole debate is wrong from the get-go.  What we should be discussing is:  proportional representation, as opposed to our existing system of plurality representation, a.k.a. "winner-take-all".

     First of all, a system where a candidate who wins with an itsy-bitsy teensy-weensy sliver of a majority over his/her opponent hardly qualifies as a voter "mandate".  From the voter's perspective, it's great if you supported the winning team, but the other 49.9999999999 percent of the population really gets screwed.  But in a proportional system, EVERY vote counts (although most nations with proportional representation do have a small minimum threshold). 

     Proportional representation also discourages oligopolies of entrenched major parties.  There are absolutely no advantages to a system where only two monstrous parties have all the power.  Elections should be all about ISSUES:  What does a party or a candidate plan to do about … taxes? spending? deficits? inflation? crime? terrorism? pollution? immigration? congestion? education? poverty? jobs? health care?  I could go on.  But when all you got is Super Parties, they don't want to talk about issues and risk alienating voters - oh no.  Rather, it's all about power and winning, at all costs.  And we wonder why so many voters are disgusted with the whole thing, and just stay home on election day.

     Likewise, for the average voter, it's not so much about issues and philosophy, and more about party loyalty.  A huge number of voters just pull the "R" or "D" lever with nary a thought.

     A far better alternative is a DYNAMIC political system, where political parties are constantly changing, new parties are birthed, old parties die, parties merge, they split, they form coalitions, they break coalitions.  It engages the voting population, keeps the political discussion fresh and exciting, and keeps it all about ISSUES, and less about power, personalities, or blind loyalties. 

      Proportional representation also solves the thorny question of which parties shall or shall not be included on the ballot.  in a plurality system, the argument can be made that the number of parties on the ballot should be limited so that the "winner" ends up with a sizable proportion of votes.  But in proportional representation, where you have multiple "winners", it doesn't matter.  You can have lots and lots of parties on the ballot, which helps ensure that every voter can find a favorable candidate or party, rather than sit out the election!  (Again, a small minimum threshold requirement is Ok.)

      But having dynamic political parties is nearly impossible in a winner-take-all system.  A proportional voting system is the way to go.  Obviously, changing our voting system at the national level is not easy at all.  Yes, it would require a Constitutional amendment.  But it could certainly be done at the local level.