Electoral
College needs reform
The Modesto Bee
October 4, 2004
America
picks its presidents by a vote of the majority, right? Not always.
Actually, 538 electors — members of the Electoral College, an
institution embedded in the U.S. Constitution — choose the
president.
Usually,
their votes mirror the popular vote. But not always, as was
demonstrated in 2000 and twice in the 19th century. In those
elections, the popular-vote loser became president.
The
Electoral College is an 18th-century anachronism that, if not
abolished, should at least be amended so that presidential elections
more closely reflect the will of the majority.
Sticking
with the current system invites a number of problems. One is that a
single, sparsely populated state can determine the winner in a close
race. While Florida was the key battleground in 2000, it could have
been New Mexico or Nevada. This year's presidential campaigns are
flooding Nevada with TV ads to secure the state's five electoral
votes, while California, with its 55 electoral votes, is ignored.
Why? Because California has been ceded to Kerry.
That
raises a second problem. In most states, it's all-or-nothing. The
winner of the popular vote gets all of the electoral votes; the
loser gets none. That can skew the results. Maine and Nebraska do it
differently. They allocate electoral votes based on the popular vote
in each congressional district. In Colorado, a ballot measure would
go a step further, if passed — awarding electoral votes to each
candidate by statewide percentage.
Other
states could devise other formulas in pursuit of greater equity or
in pursuit of greater leverage. Why not have one formula for all
states?
Awarding
electoral votes by congressional district — even if failing to
mimic the popular will — would at least force presidential
candidates not to take any state for granted. Suddenly 40 percent of
California's electoral votes would be more attractive than all of
Nevada's.
A
national debate is needed.
Electoral
College Table of Contents
|