Eliminate the Electoral College? You'll Never See Your Candidate Again

image
Published: 10 Mar, 2016
2 min read

As a follower of politics, I love seeing all the hair-brained ideas that sprout up from time-to-time arguing for this change or that, without really considering what would happen if it was actually put into practice.

We live in a federal republic. Big states have a larger share of influence, but smaller states still maintain at least some balance through the equal representation in the Senate.

The Electoral College was part of this framework. Presidential candidates had to win at the state-level, but an enormous win in one state couldn't skew the entire result.

That is, a candidate might win 99% of the vote in California and it wouldn't matter; they only win the delegates apportioned to the state.

This highlights the problems with eliminating the Electoral College; the very nature of campaigning would change, and most Americans would never see a candidate again.

America is facing growing urbanization -- almost 81 percent of the population lives in cities.

Even worse, right at one-third of the U.S.'s total population lives in only ten metropolitan areas!

We're used to the battleground state phenomenon, where states become flyovers because they are pocketed wins. However, if we eliminated the Electoral College, candidates could campaign in the top 20 metro areas and win the lion's share of votes.

IVP Donate

This would be a politicking nightmare -- candidates jockeying to dominate the airwaves in the markets with the most people, while others totally ignore the rural and nationwide vote.

The biggest losers, though, would be the Republicans.

The red/blue map is often dominated by where the urban regions are located. Solid swaths of red are typically wide spreads of rural America.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the urban/rural divide is often represented in the red/blue map -- and forcing candidates to campaign along the urban/rural divide would be a stacked deck in favor of the Democrats.

Our Founders knew that they weren't forming a perfect form of government, that's why they allowed for a mechanism for change. But to think that we should change to a system where Democrats could campaign in 20 cities while Republicans scramble to unify the rural areas, how would this improve the existing system?

Photo Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

You Might Also Like

Hillcrest
'Build, Baby, Build!' is NOT the Answer to Housing Crises
Can San Diego build its way out of its three-part housing crisis – supply, affordability and homelessness? Some of elected officials think so and are leading the charge. I have been in the real estate industry for 50-plus years, and I say they are on the wrong track....
27 Oct, 2025
-
4 min read
Isn't It Weird That Congress Feels No Urgency to Re-Open the Government?
Isn't It Weird That Congress Feels No Urgency to Re-Open the Government?
The U.S. has entered Day 22 of the latest government shutdown with no end in sight. As pundits expect it to surpass the 35-day record set during Trump’s first term, a new Gallup poll shows voters’ approval of Congress has plummeted in the last month. Yet, for congressional leaders, there isn’t any urgency to re-open the government. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries trade jabs back and forth in the media, but the blame game continues to be prioritized over solutions....
22 Oct, 2025
-
5 min read
Proposition 50 voter guide
California Prop 50: Partisan Power Play or Necessary Counterpunch?
November 4 marks a special election for what has become the most controversial ballot measure in California in recent memory: Proposition 50, which would circumvent congressional districts drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission for a legislative-drawn map....
01 Oct, 2025
-
9 min read