Ben Stanelle

Sam Hacksworth

English 102

April 4th 2016

Moving Towards an Equal Vote

America is the country by the people, for the people. This means that as Americans one our greatest rights is our right to elect our leaders. This is a freedom that not everyone in the world receives and one that we should treat with responsibility. The ability to elect ones leaders into office means that we all have a say in the government. If we do not like what one of our leaders is doing then we have the ability to elect a new one. It is also a privilege that Americans have fought for centuries to make fair. All citizens receiving an equal vote is intuitively the fairest way to elect a leader. However what many Americans don't realize is that despite all we've attempted to do to provide equal voting rights to all people we are still being cheated of an equal vote by the very system in which we agree to use. The unequal apportionment method in which our votes are cast is called the Electoral College. "The system was devised as a compromise between those who wanted Congress to select the president and those who favored election by the people. (Saad)." As well it would have been impractical or maybe even impossible back in the day of our founding fathers to calculate a vote nationwide. There are 538 votes in the Electoral College, which means that for a president to win he or she must receive at least 270 votes from the Electoral College. Each state receives a certain number of votes in the Electoral College based on population size. However each state receives a minimum of three votes even if the population of that state does not warrant three votes. As a result these states are stealing votes from states with larger populations.  For example someone living in Alaska, which should only receive one vote in the Electoral College, is receiving a larger percentage per capita in the Electoral College than a state like North Carolina who based off of their population should receive 19 votes but only receives 17.  Additionally, the Electoral College has led to presidential candidates spending less time in a large number of states when campaigning, and spending the majority if not all of their time in a handful of swing states. Aside from the Electoral College giving people in different states an unequal percentage of voting power, sometimes it does not even work. Our president should be by the people for the people, so the majority of Americans should have voted for the president.  Three times in history the Electoral College has picked a president that did not win the popular vote. The plan to eliminate the Electoral College and switch to a method where each American citizen receives one vote for president is called the National Popular Vote method and has to be achieved through an Interstate Compact. This will guarantee that the presidential candidate receiving the majority of votes across the nation will become the president. The National Popular Vote is a better way to determine the president than the Electoral College because it insures an equal percentage of votes for everyone, it will require candidates to campaign in a wider variety of cities across more states, and it will make sure that the president elected received the majority of votes across all of America. 

The Electoral College has a habit of awarding the presidential candidate with the majority of votes nationwide a "winner's bonus". A winner's bonus is the extra percentage the presidential candidate wins in the Electoral College over what he or she wins in the popular vote. So typically if a candidate wins the popular vote 55% to their opponents 45%, then the Electoral College will most likely say the candidate won by say 70%. This extra 15% of the vote awarded to the winner is called the winners bonus. We'll use President Obama to look at some recent examples of the winner's bonus. In the 2008 election President Obama beat his opponent John McCain 53% to 46% in the National Popular vote. However in the Electoral College, President Obama won 67% to McCain's 29%, the extra 14% that Obama won by is the winner's bonus. In 2012 President Obama's winner bonus equated to an extra 10% in the Electoral College. But what if the Electoral College did not always award the winners bonus to the winner of the popular vote but instead gave the extra 10% to 15% to the loser? This would mean that the losing candidate of the popular vote would still end up winning in the Electoral College and becoming president, and unfortunately this has occurred too often in America's history. What makes the Electoral College most unacceptable is the fact that on three different elections throughout history the Electoral College system has been responsible for electing the candidate the majority of  Americans did not vote for. "Although this has only happened three time throughout history when you consider the fact that there have only been 56 presidential elections that means that the Electoral College chooses a president that only won a majority of states, not votes 5% of the time(CPG Grey)." This would be like if in football the referees decided 5% of the time to award the losers with a win. This happened most recently in 2000 when "George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn't win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266 (InfoPlease.com)." 

At the heart of every presidential election is the long trail that the presidential candidate most go through known as the presidential campaign. The presidential campaign is important for finding out what a presidential candidate is truly like and his or her positions on policies. It is important for candidates to make appearances in all states and to be asked a variety of questions that may change region to region.  However with the assistance of modern technology the landscape of the presidential campaign has changed. No longer is it required for presidents to campaign in all states, actually because of the Electoral College system it is not necessary for a presidential candidate to spend time in most of the states. Instead presidential candidates campaign in a select few swing states and focus the majority of their time and advertising dollars there. To prove the existence of swing states did you know that "Democrats have won the same group of states worth 242 electoral votes for every election since 1992.(Associated Press)" Jim Messina, President Obama's campaign manager, said "What I care way more about is Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That's why the national polls aren't relevant to this campaign." And what's even more concerning is that the number of swing states in each presidential election appears to be a diminishing number. "Of the nine states that received campaign attention in 2012 beyond the national norm, every single one had also been among the 13 battleground states in the 2008 election. (Richie)" The problem with this is that presidential candidates are no longer keeping their policies honest. "As the identity of swing states becomes more predictable, we can expect additional problems. Parties, candidates, and incumbent presidents will be all the more tempted to target their messages, policy preferences, and discretionary spending toward swing states. (Richie)" If enough states agreed to join the interstate compact to replace the Electoral College and switch to a National Popular Vote campaigning would go back to the way it should be, with the candidates campaigning in every state so that every American is well informed when it comes time to vote in the election. 

Now why is it that not all Americans vote, it is a privilege to get to vote and a duty that we as Americans should uphold. However someone cannot be blamed for not voting into a system that they do not find just. Perhaps this is why not everyone votes, because not everybody is receiving the same percent of a vote across the United States. According to CPG Grey states "Like Wyoming which population only counts for .18% of American receives .56% of the vote in the Electoral College (CPG Grey)." Seeing as "one Vermonters vote in the Electoral College is equal to three Texans votes and Wyomingites vote is worth four Californians. (CGP Grey)." And just to show you how fragile of a system the Electoral College is "A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush's nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes. A shift of 214,393 votes in 2012 would have elected Mitt Romney despite President Obama's nationwide lead of almost 5,000,000 votes. (NPV.com)."

Recent surveys show that "A January 2013 Gallup poll indicating that at least 60% each of Democrats, Republicans, and independents would support a national popular vote for president (Saad 2013)." The National Popular Vote method, despite being favored in the Gallop Poll, is having a tough time getting enough states to join in the Interstate compact to change the selection method for the president. This is due to the opposing view that we should continue to use the Electoral College. Presidential candidates spend time in swing states because in most states it can be determined prior to the election whether the state will vote republican or democrat. However with no electoral college, candidates will have to travel to the majority of states. The opposing view is that candidates will not have enough time to make a meaningful campaign in each state. "If you make it so a president has to travel to 50 states to court voters, that's going to take time, and that's going to take money. People are already furious that this presidential election could cost a billion dollars."(Hickey).  As well as campaigns being less meaningful people may wonder what will happen to rural voters. "First of all, without it, rural voters would not matter in any way, shape, or form. Why would a candidate go out to the middle of nowhere to court rural voters when he could stroll through a single Manhattan apartment complex and meet ten times the people for one tenth of the airfare?(Hickey)." However questions like this don't consider the fact that rural areas are already skipped when campaigning, as a matter of fact most rural states are skipped in campaigning under the Electoral College system. When moving to a National Popular Vote we will see an increase of candidates in these rural states, even if it is not the rural areas that they are paying attention to. What about if three candidates are running for president and all receive about an equal number of votes? "In a direct election, a candidate who garners no more than 30% of the national popular vote could be president. (Garns)" The problem with thinking this is that even if the final percentages are 33%, 33% and 34% the president who received a polarity as opposed to a majority of votes by most Americans will still become president. We could see something similar take place in the Electoral College on any given year but with the way the Electoral College is set up we could see someone earning only 22% of the vote and still becoming president (CPG Grey). Despite the opposition's view that a president without the majority, only a polarity, of votes across the United States could win they do not discuss how this could already happen in the Electoral College, or how more likely it would result in a president not earning the polarity of votes becoming the president.

 The reasons for states to join into the Interstate Compact to adopt a National Popular Vote is a long and growing list. According to the National Achieves and Records Administration, the entity in charge of the Electoral College, "The Electoral College has been the subject of more proposed amendments than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution (National Archives and Records Administration 2012)." Any topic that has been discussed as many times in Congress as the Electoral College has seen change brought forth. And we shouldn't feel bad about changing what our founding fathers agreed upon over 200 years ago. It is just a fact that small states do not need the extra "protection" granted to them by their extra Electoral College votes. Besides not even all of our founding fathers agreed that the Electoral College was the best way to elect the president. However the main reasons for switching to a National Popular vote system, which I discussed in this paper are that the Electoral College has a habit of electing the wrong candidate sometimes. There are 3 examples of the wrong president being chosen and at this point in time it makes more sense for us to choose the president that America citizens want, not what the majority of the electors in the Electoral College want. The Electoral College has created a system were candidates can pander to their audiences. The number of swing states continues to diminish and the nine or ten states left will hear their needs being discussed by presidential candidates even if a candidate has little or no position on the topic. It has created a system that has made it too easy for presidential candidates to appeal to only those whose votes they know they must win over. And finally the Electoral College just isn't democracy. Democracy is when every citizen with the right to vote receives the same percentage of a vote. Seeing as "one Vermonters vote in the Electoral College is equal to three Texans votes and Wyomingites vote is worth four Californians. (CGP Grey)" The Electoral College is not a fair system. Any reason our founding fathers had for putting the system into place is no longer a problem due to modern technology. Now at this point I'm sure you are wondering what can be done, how do we enact the Interstate Compact to get around this unjust system before it makes another mistake and sticks Americans with a leader they did not elect by popular vote? Well luckily ten states as well as the District of Columbia (which I will now refer to as a state because it gets electoral votes like states) have already passed legislation to sign the Interstate Compact. In order for the vote to pass, enough states need to sign the compact to equate to 270 Electoral College votes. The current eleven states that have agreed to sign the compact equate for 165 votes. This means that only another 105 electors worth of states must sign the compact. Where are the greatest opportunities to pass the Interstate Compact? There is a lot of motivation for the states Georgia, Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and a few other states to sign the Interstate Compact. Why? Because these are the states being cheated of votes.  As a USC student there is not much to do about the Electoral College except for bringing attention to its injustice. Additionally work can be done in the state of South Carolina to get create legislation to sign into the Interstate Compact. Writing letters to the senate and governor's office as well as discussing this injustice in appropriate forums are a few things you can do for the cause. Because so many students on campus come from North Carolina and Tennessee it is important to make sure that these students are educated in why the switch to a National Popular vote is so important seeing as it is more likely to see a vote being held in their state to sign into the compact than in South Carolina. 

Richie, Robert "The Contemporary Presidency: How the 2012 Presidential Election Has Strengthened the Movement for the National Popular Vote Plan," Presidential Studies Quarterly. Jun2013, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p353-376. 24p. 5 Charts, 7 Graphs. Wiley Blackwell, February 24th 2016.

Walter Hickey, "The Electoral College Is Brilliant, And We'd Be Insane to Abolish it," Business Insider, October 3rd. 2012. February 6th. 2016.  

n.a, "National popular vote plans carry their own flaws," National popular vote plans carry their own flaws USA Today, 07347456, DEC 18, 2012. February 24th 2016.

n.p. "Why do we have the Electoral College Archieves.gov. U.S National Archives and Record Administration. N.d. Web. February 3rd 2016.

Richie, Robert. "Reforming the electoral college with interstate compacts," National Civic Review. Spring2007, Vol. 96 Issue 1, p38-46. 9p. Wiley. February 14th 2016.

CGP Grey. "The Trouble with the Electoral College," Online video clip. Youtube.com, November 7th 2011. February 14th 2016.

Associated Press. "Parties Assess Several Variables Looking at 2016 Map." Parties Assess Several Variables Looking at 2016 Map. N.p., 25 Dec. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

Black, Eric. "Why the Constitution's Framers Didn't Want Us to Directly Elect the President." MinnPost. N.p., 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

Gore, D'Angelo. "Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote." FactCheckorg. N.p., 24 Mar. 2008. Web. 02 Apr. 2016.

"Presidential Election of 2008, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary." Infoplease. Infoplease, 2008. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.
