Tuesday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Hey hey! Ho ho!
The electoral college
has got to go!
DIARY OF A
MALCONTENT
MICHAEL J. KLECKNER
Last week, I proposed that we begin vot
ing digitally on touch-screen kiosks, in
order to eliminate any questions of the
legitimacy of our elections. But there
is a second pillar to my election reform plan,
and that’s the Electoral College. Recently,
pundits and columnists have been vigorously
defending this stalwart of the voting process.
But it’s all hogwash. The electoral system has
absolutely got to go.
Conservatives might be expected to support
the Electoral College. They are, after all, con
servative. The very name means they are re
sistant to change — and especially to some
thing as hallowed as the Constitution.
I think there’s a little opportunism involved
also, though. Texas Gov. George W. Bush
seems poised to win this election even though
he didn’t receive the most votes. I mean seri
ously, if the election had gone the other way,
and Gore had lost the popular vote but won
the electoral vote, the U.S. Congress would
now be voting on scrapping the whole elec
toral business.
Opportunism aside, let’s treat the argu
ments for retaining the Electoral College seri
ously. What goodies does it give our democra
cy to not have a popular vote?
The first bonus offered by supporters of the
electoral system, such as writers for the Wash
ington Post, Business Week and the Christian
Science Monitor, is that it makes candidates
have to campaign in all the states, not just the
major metropolitan areas with a large popula
tion.
Mmmm, no. Not true. For example, this
year neither Gore nor Bush visited Wyoming
or South Dakota. The outcome in those states
was assumed, and with so few electoral votes,
they just didn’t matter. Florida, on the other
hand, was visited by the two candidates a
combined 38 times. Florida was seen as a bat
tleground state (in hindsight, I can’t imagine
why), so the candidates focused efforts there.
If the popular vote was instituted, candi
dates would have to woo the whole country.
After all, if the vote was expected to be close
in California, or say, Florida, 30,000 votes in
Wyoming would matter.
Why is there such a focus on a “nationwide
campaign,” anyway? We live in the TV and
Internet era. Buying TV ads makes it a nation
wide campaign. Having debate transcripts
and party platforms available on the Internet
makes it a nationwide campaign. Candidates
no longer have to ride on horseback to the
next town meeting.
A nationwide campaign is fine, but what
about a nationwide re-count? Opponents of
the popular vote worry that a close election
would require an almost impossible national
re-count. That wouldn’t be necessary if we in
stitute digital voting. With a digital system,
every vote would be counted instantly and
correctly the first time — all 100 million of
them.
The only other significant defense of the Elec
toral College, offered by, among others, Emer
ald columnist Bret Jacobson on this page last
week, is that it’s a necessary part of our tradi
tion and the Constitutional values of represen
tative democracy that make our country great.
But the electoral system isn’t representative . •
democracy. It isn’t as though the high-class,
educated elite are the people who cast elec
toral votes for president. Electors are little
more than the party faithful, who are just as
likely to be drooling morons as the average
voter. So where is the benefit of having our in
tellectual betters make wiser decisions than
we ourselves would make? There is no wiser
decision, and there is no benefit. The electors
simply mouth the popular vote of each state.
But they mouth it in a magnified manner.
This magnification of the electoral vote
compared to the actual voters is the problem.
See, the Electoral College was designed to
give preference to places with a larger popula
tion, not a larger number of voters. As ex
plained by Walter Williams in the March 1998
issue of Headway, and Abraham McLaughlin
in the Nov. 15,2000 issue of the Christian Sci
ence Monitor, some people have argued this
was a method to help preserve slavery, be
cause slaves were counted in the population
of a state even though they couldn’t vote. So
even though they had less voters, states with
more slaves had more pull in the presidential
election. Slavery and unequal representation
— are these the American values that conser
vatives are speaking of when they defend the
Electoral College?
The way this inequality works out today is
to give more power to voters in states with
more children. A voter in Utah has more say
in the presidential election than I do. I defy
anyone to explain to me how this is fair or sus
tains a representative democracy. We need to
blow this system out of the water.
Thanks to some of the electoral system’s
supporters, I have a few more compelling rea
sons that people should demand the abolition
of the Electoral College.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., defending the elec
toral system in the Nov. 13, 2000 issue of
Time, wrote, “The abolition of state-by-state,
winner-take-all electoral votes would speed
the disintegration of the already weakened
two-party system. ... Cumulating votes from
state to state, [third parties] could force a
runoff if no candidate got more than 40 per
cent of the vote — and then could extract con
cessions from the major parties. ”
Hurrah! You mean third parties would have
to build coalitions with other parties? You mean
major parties would actually have to listen to
other voices in our country? Count me in.
Another tactic used bv supporters of the
Electoral College is that individual states
could simply change their method of allocat
ing electors. According to a Nov. 21,2000 arti
cle by Robert Tanner of the Associated Press,
Illinois and California are both considering
bills to have each congressional district award
its elector based on how that district voted.
So, theoretically, Oregon could have five elec
toral votes for Gore and two for Bush, based
on how the different districts voted.
Wait a minute. Giving each district its own
vote based on the popular vote is darn near
just having a popular vote. And there are ben
efits. As Republican Illinois Representative
Bill Mitchell explained in Tanner’s article,
“This bill acknowledges that there are differ
ences in the political preferences in different
parts of our state.”
And guess what? Having a popular vote
would acknowledge that there are differences
in the political preferences of each and every
citizen. It’s about time we made those differ
ences count.
Michael J. Kleckner is the editorial editor for the Ore
gon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily repre
sent those of the Emerald. He can be re,ad)ed at opp
deditor-@jaumalisttCom? ..
THE QUESTIONS f
WERE TOO |
CONFUSING! I
■
I DEMAND I
> ARE-GRADE! I
-■
;
1
ip
i f
1
i /
|||
iipH
mM
Jr- \y> t-0
FINAL
EXAM
: ■ ■ M
i lliti
I