“Even if every election showed a discrepancy between the popular and electoral votes, the Electoral College would still be serving its underlying purpose: rewarding coalition building and discouraging candidates with isolated or only regional appeal.”
– Why We Need the Electoral College
Since Joe Biden’s Presidential Inauguration in 2021, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has doubled, even as Texas and Arizona have erected barriers of their own to stop the surge. That is, by some estimates, an additional 10 million immigrants will be ushered in, handed federal money, given airplane rides to every corner of the country, and in some instances, qualify for housing. Then, when the next census is taken in 2030, these individuals will be included in state populations when determining not only the number of representatives in Congress but also the number of electoral votes in presidential elections.
Whether both US citizens and non-US citizens should be included in the decennial census has been debated for decades. Slaves padded the population of the South, securing them more representation, and thus more sway, in the House of Representatives. Now it is feared that illegal aliens are padding the population of several states to grow their numbers and gain more power. With clear incentives to flood the country with more illegals, the battle at the border is sure to continue.
In Tara Ross’s 2017 book, “Why We Need the Electoral College”, Ross makes the case for the Electoral College proving that rather than being an antiquated policy of the past, its provisions are evergreen. As they did with the Constitution, the Founders made concessions for both small and large states in structuring the Electoral College.
Since small states feared being overshadowed by their larger counterparts, the Founders split the Congressional chamber in two, giving each state an equal number of Senators, two, while allowing representation in the House to be based on population. This was a clear nod to an anti-majoritarian system of governance, that sought to weigh the wishes of the minority, especially when it differed from the majority.
The same consideration was given to the Electoral College and the administration of the presidential election. While citizens complete their ballot based on a presidential candidate, each candidate has a list of electors preselected in the event they win. With the Electoral Vote allocation based on the same number of representatives in Congress, state totals vary widely. For example, in Wyoming and six other small states, there are 2 senators and 1 representative, or 3 electors, while in California, our largest state, there are 2 senators and 52 representatives, or 54 electors. Most states assign electors on a winner-take-all basis, that is, whichever candidate wins the majority in the state, wins the total number of electors. Thus, there is no national election in the United States. Instead, there are 51 individual elections for each state and the District of Columbia. With state legislatures tasked with establishing the rules of each election, the Founders wanted the election out of the control of the federal government and left to the nuances of each state.
Two separate strategies can be employed to win the presidential election. To win the Electoral College, candidates must traverse the country and court voters in every state, and every region. Ideally, a candidate will campaign to obtain 50.1 percent in as many states as possible as the winner of the Electoral College must get a national broad-based support of the people. In 2016, for instance, Donald Trump held dozens of rallies throughout the US in an attempt to secure the majority votes in both small and large states. With 538 electors on the line, presidential candidates must get 270 electoral votes or more to win. Since the loss of a small state can be the difference between winning and losing, no state can be neglected.
The National Popular Vote, on the other hand, can be won based only on regional support. This is the approach that Hillary Clinton chose for her campaign. By avoiding middle America and small states, she was able to devote significant time driving up vote totals in deep blue places like New York, and California, to drive up vote totals. In fact, more than 20 percent of her final vote tally came from these two states alone. In the process, she neglected important swing states, failing to capture a coalition of states nationwide. As a result, Hillary won the irrelevant popular vote and lost the only one that mattered, the Electoral College. Trump won 30 states in his quest for president, while Hillary snared just 20, 8 less than Obama won in his first attempt in 2008.
With ongoing claims of election interference and outright fraud, the Electoral College also works to limit its reach. Since there are 51 separate elections, any fraud or human error is limited to that state or jurisdiction. The decentralized nature of the Electoral College, therefore, prevents the entire election from becoming tainted and ensures that fraudulent activity will only affect a small number of electors.
In a divided country, building a coalition is a noble exercise. The elected President is a figurehead for all Americans, whether he or she received their votes or not. The Electoral College system, carefully crafted by our Founders, balances the wishes of large and small states alike while requiring a federal majority. Anyone attempting to undo this process does not have the best interest of America in mind.
Comments