WHEN I was in the fourth grade, I ran for student council. The election process went something like this: Any student, with a recommendation from his or her teacher, could run for student council. Every candidate then had two weeks to campaign, passing out colorfully-decorated stickers, bribing other students with candy, and of course, in an attempt to reach all voters, utilizing the school's mass media, otherwise known as the televised morning announcements. Then, after what I am sure was serious contemplation, each student filled out a ballot, and placed it in their teachers' ballot box. The votes were counted by hand, and announced quickly and efficiently.
This method of electing student government leaders may seem elementary, and in fact it was, but at least it was more organized and sensible than the way our nation elects the president. We nine-year-olds were on to something --direct popular vote. In order to ensure that the people of the United States are fairly and equally represented, the federal government should take a hint from elementary school politics, rid the nation of the Electoral College, and elect the president by popular vote.
With both Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) and Vice President Al Gore holding 48 percent of the general election vote, this presidential race is the closest and most controversial election in the last 100 years. Because the election is so close, the only way for the 2000 election to represent the national will is to base the outcome on the American people's vote. Instead, it is possible for a presidential candidate to lose the election despite having won the popular vote. The reasons for maintaining the Electoral College are outdated and shouldn't determine the outcome of an election.
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College when the nation consisted of only 13 states of various sizes concerned about their rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government. At that time, only about 4 million people were spread up and down the Atlantic coast, barely connected by any form of transportation or communication. The problem the Constitutional Convention had to solve was how "to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand, and between the states and the federal government on the other" (www.fec.gov).
Today these worries hardly seem relevant. The Founding Fathers believed that because of a lack of communication between the American people, citizens would know very little about candidates from outside their state, and therefore vote for a "favorite son" from their state. Because of this, it would be possible that a candidate might not win the popular majority or the president would be decided by the most populous state.
This lack of communication is no longer a concern. Television, radio, newspapers and other forms of mass media allow the American public to stay informed about the election and learn about the candidates' platforms. Transportation makes it possible for candidates to bring their campaigns to the citizens of each and every state. Any American who wants to be politically informed can be, and quite easily.
There is no need to protect the rights of the smaller states. The United States has expanded from 13 colonies to 50 states (and one district). Even if several states had "favorite sons" running for president, no candidate could win simply by being from a heavily populated state. Yet, the setup of the Electoral College shelters the smaller states by appointing a set number of electoral votes, based on the state's number of senators and representatives.
Depending on which candidate wins the most votes by direct popular vote, that candidate's electors are permitted to vote in the Electoral College. These electors are chosen by the political parties they represent, and are therefore very partisan, so almost always, whoever wins the popular vote in the state wins all of the state's electoral votes. Whether a presidential candidate won by a landslide or a tiny margin doesn't matter. In this way, it is possible for one candidate to win the popular vote while another can be victorious in the Electoral College.
If the citizens of a big state favor one candidate, while the citizens of a smaller state favor another, the outcome of the election should display the opinions of the majority of the American people, not how just one state's population feels. The citizens of larger states are being denied equal representation -- it appears that their votes don't matter as much as the citizens of smaller states.
Some people may argue that electing the president by popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign only in populous states. However, election by direct vote means that each citizen's vote counts individually, no matter where that person lives. A candidate could win by having support from many smaller states. If anything, electing the president by popular vote should encourage candidates to campaign even more then they do now, because they would not spend all their time in swing states.
The outcome of the presidential election should be determined by direct popular vote to ensure the individuality of every American citizen. Never underestimate the workings of the elementary school political system.
(Michelle Drucker's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
