Why Not Abolish the Electoral College? Doesn’t It Subvert the People’s Will? Why I Don’t Believe It Does
By Ken K. Gourdin
Although she won the popular vote against President Donald Trump, what former Senator from New York and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton forgot is that it is not sufficient to get people to vote for you in sufficient numbers; those people must come from the right states, as well—the ones with the most votes in the Electoral College.
It is not sufficient to run a national campaign for president; essentially, a candidate must run 50 state campaigns, and must win enough campaigns in states with the most electoral votes to amass 270 Electoral College votes. So why not abolish the Electoral College? Isn’t it an anti-democratic institution that subverts the will of the people? No. Whatever one might think of the Electoral College, even in our modern, enlightened time, it does serve a useful function, still.
The Electoral College serves as a check on the power of the most populous states against their less populous counterparts. Essentially, Secretary Clinton courted votes on both coasts of the United States, where, even today, the nation’s population (dare I say its liberal population?) is concentrated—and ignored the broad, vast swath of voters in the middle.
Without the Electoral College, provided that citizens register and vote in sufficient numbers in these states, the same 8-10 states would decide every single presidential election: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey. (Though, to be fair, Georgia, North Carolina, and perhaps Texas might be seen, generally, as more conservative than the others.)
Do many people from New York or California tend to think differently about many issues which might be germane to a presidential election than people from, say, Nebraska, or Wyoming, or Utah (my home state)? You better believe they do! People from either coast already tend to exercise an inordinate influence over the nation’s culture, its finances, and other important issues, as it is. I see no reason to increase that influence by allowing them to decide every single national election, as well.