Come Tuesday, you really need to get out there and vote. The various propositions can greatly affect your day-to-day lives and generally progress a state’s welfare. But when it comes to the presidency, there’s a good chance your vote really won’t affect who wins.
No matter how many “Vote or Die” shirts P. Diddy wears, no matter how many over-caffeinated and overly sunscreened girls try to register you to vote, if you’re a California resident, your presidential vote will no doubt be swallowed in the vast liberal majority that reside in the state. And to blame for this injustice is an appendage of our democratic process known as the Electoral College.
The Electoral College consists of 538 voters who actually choose the president, indirectly parroting the majority of votes from the state they represent, with more populous states having more electoral votes than states with fewer citizens. The real problem with this process is that when a presidential candidate wins the popular vote of a state, he or she wins all the given electoral votes for that state.
Essentially what this means is that winning by one vote in California and winning by a million and one votes in California leads to the same outcome, consequentially making those extra million votes a complete waste. For California and its largely Democratic population, this is usually a reality when it comes to the presidential election.
More importantly, when a candidate loses in a state by a small amount, none of those losing votes count for anything. No matter the proximity in difference, the winner of each state wins that state by a landslide. Al Gore’s losing candidacy in 2000 was a direct result of this fact, an election that ended with him winning the popular vote but (obviously) losing the race.
Originally the Electoral College was created as a middle ground aimed at curbing the “ignorance” of the masses, giving voice to both the popular vote and Congress. At the time Congress did not think common people were smart enough to adequately choose the president and thus wanted sole power over the choice. Additionally, citizens generally felt much deeper ties to their state, so it was only natural that a state’s whole population voted as one.
But in modern times, when children have traveled through several states by the age of 12, and the “state before country” notion is clearly outdated, a national matter like the presidency cannot afford to be voted on in a state-by-state manner. There is no reason for any kind of indirect voting in this country.
Ultimately, the Electoral College is a vestige of a time when the common citizen put his state allegiance above that of his nation. But now, in a time when one campaign’s motto states “Country First,” whomever takes office this January must insist on changing the electoral process. When choosing our national leader, the only way to establish true democracy is through voting as a citizen of the country, not the state. With a true popular vote deciding the president, as is the case with the Senate and House of Representatives, the emphasis on swing states would be eliminated and leave in its wake only the clear tide of a true democracy.