Counting on an interesting election night
Sunday, November 05, 2000
By Mark Trahant

WASHINGTON, D.C. This is not the time to talk philosophy. Or describe how political campaigns represent our concerns, hopes and ideals for what might be.

Forget lofty: A few hours before the election, it's time to count.

Sometimes majority rules. We elect candidates who tip the magic 50 percent, plus one. In other contests, plurality trumps -- a winning candidate might get 40 percent of the votes in a three-way contest.

Then there is the Electoral College.

It's easy to count. So reporters, campaign workers and ordinary citizens have been adding and re-adding state totals on a map and exploring ways for either Al Gore or George W. Bush to tally up the needed 270 electoral votes. The Internet makes this great fun. There are dozens of sites with interactive maps that show what this election might look like, with state-by-state returns.

I will be logged on and watching Florida. If Gore wins that state's 25 electoral votes, election night will be interesting and, perhaps, long. If Bush wins, on the other hand, it'll be a lot easier to go to bed early. (Easier said than done: I love watching election returns.)

This year we even have the thrilling, if remote, possibility that one candidate could win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. This could happen because Bush should win big in Texas -- by 30 percent or more at the polls -- but still collect no more than that state's 32 electoral votes. We've survived Electoral College surprises before. In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president by the House of Representatives after the Electoral College tied.

The losing candidate, Andrew Jackson, was gracious at first. But when Henry Clay was named secretary of state, Jackson called the election "the corrupt bargain" and spent the next four years campaigning. He won easily in the next round.

Could we stand another corrupt bargain? Should we have to?

Last week U.S. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., and Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., called for the abolition of the Electoral College. They want direct elections: one citizen, one vote.

That would improve our democratic process. But is getting rid of the Electoral College the only thing we ought to change?

This week, for example, the District of Columbia will begin selling vehicle license plates that include the optional phrase, "Taxation Without Representation." The tags will remind the District's citizens and Congress that this country still has electoral inequities.

But what about inequities in Congress?

Start with the House. We are one of the few nations still clinging to the idea of "first past the post" district elections. Most countries opt for proportional representation, which ensures a voice for nearly every point of view. In Europe, it means Greens and other minority parties are players in a system designed to better mirror the complexity of society.

Here, we cling to a process that essentially protects the Democrat and Republican parties, and compels voters to pick between the "viable" candidates.

Now consider the Senate: Two senators allotted per state. So a senator from Wyoming has the same weight representing 479,000 people as does a senator from California with 33 million residents.

This is the same inequity -- no more, no less -- that occurs in the Electoral College.

If you live in Wyoming, North Dakota or Idaho, the Electoral College is what allows your voice to be heard in a national election. Without it, few national candidates would need to visit small cities like Spokane because the election could be won or lost with just the big urban TV market vote.

Then perhaps that's what we want: No more corrupt bargains, but a direct democracy where the majority rules -- and the counting is easy.