Many perspectives, 1 simple etiquette

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

Author: David Yee
Created: 10 March, 2016
Updated: 16 October, 2022
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.

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

Read more

joined hands
10 Reasons Why Americans Are Not as Divided as You Think
Photo by on  Party leaders, politicians, and media pundits and talking heads would have US voters b...
28 February, 2024
7 min read
LetUsVote: New Campaign Launches to End Discrimination Against Independent Voters
Open Primaries, in partnership with Unite America, announced the launch of LetUsVote Wednesday, a nationwide initiative that aims to mobilize and empower independent voters, who make up the largest voting bloc in the US but are treated like second-class voters....
27 February, 2024
4 min read
For Good or Bad, Primary Changes May Be Coming to Elections Near You
Photo Credit:  The last couple of years have seen an increase in states looking to change their prim...
26 February, 2024
4 min read
The Primary Problem: Only 8% of Voters Elect 83% of Our Representatives
In his latest podcast, former Democratic presidential candidate and Forward Party Co-Founder Andrew ...
26 February, 2024
3 min read
Blame This One on Secretary of State Weber
Eight years ago, there was a competition still in play between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton wh...
26 February, 2024
4 min read
Kansas Bill Would Make It Impossible for Many Independents to Run for Statewide Office
Photo By:  The Kansas House approved a bill Thursday that aims to make it substantially harder for i...
23 February, 2024
4 min read