Innumerable controversies, endless analyses, pointless arguments. Politics becomes a reality TV show and our favorite shows — "Keeping Up with the Candidates," "America's Next Top Boss," and "Pro Wrestling: Political Smackdown" — continue to entertain us. We are tricked into believing that we have a significant role to play as informed voters. Yet the system through which we vote precludes such a melodramatic importance.
A flawed system
The Electoral College has its roots in the slavery era of the United States. The Southern states wanted slaves to contribute to their total voting power, but didn't want to extend suffrage to them. Through the Three-Fifths Compromise and Electoral College, a smaller number of voters in the Southern states had a larger stake in presidential elections.
In the modern era, the Electoral College exaggerates the importance of a handful of so-called swing states, where neither party has a clear advantage going into the election. Analysts already predict that only seven states will decide the next President of the United States (or, more accurately, the next President of Nevada-Colorado-Iowa-Ohio-Virginia-Florida-Vermont).
Consequently, candidates focus almost exclusively on voters in those states, spending exorbitant sums of money in concentrated campaigning. Voter turnout decreases in most states, over 70 percent of votes are made irrelevant, and the central principle of "one person, one vote" is violated. Electors aren't even bound to vote in accordance with their state's vote; in 2004, one of Minnesota's 10 electors voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry! Most importantly, the process precludes a real national conversation when only a few voters actually matter.
ADVERTISEMENT
The most prominent example of the Electoral College disagreeing with the national popular vote occurred in 2000, when Republican George W. Bush won the presidency but lost the national popular vote to Democrat Al Gore. However, with recent leftward shifts in former battleground states, the Electoral College now favors Democrats. In 2012, President Barack Obama won the presidency by 3.9 percent in the popular vote and by a whopping 23.4 percent in the Electoral College.
The solution
The solution is simple: abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote. The candidate winning the most votes nationally wins the presidency. There is significant bipartisan support for the establishment of a national popular vote, with 72 percent of Americans and 75 percent of Minnesotans supporting such reform.
Arguments against a national popular vote focus on two main claims. The first is that the Electoral College protects the interest of small states by giving them a larger stake in presidential elections. Yet candidates don't pay attention to smaller states specifically. As noted before, candidates only care about the swing states.
The second is that campaigns would ignore rural areas in favor of running urban campaigns. However this is clearly unfeasible, as less than 20 percent of Americans live in the largest 100 cities. Candidates still would need to attract broad support to get elected.
The current attempt to abolish the Electoral College centers around the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The Constitution guarantees state legislatures the right to determine how their states grant electoral votes. NPVIC avoids a constitutional amendment by getting states collectively representing 270 electoral votes to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
NPVIC only goes into action if states with a cumulative 270 electoral votes pass the bill. Since its first legislative introduction a decade ago, 10 predominantly blue states and Washington D.C. — representing 165 electoral votes — have done so. Republicans, formerly against the bill, are now coming out in support of it. Within the last year, Republicans in the New York State Senate supported it 27-2 and the Republican-controlled Oklahoma State Senate passed it 28-18.
The bill was voted upon in the Minnesota House of Representatives in the 2013-14 session and, in a close vote, failed to pass. However, with growing bipartisan support, the bill was reintroduced in the House. State legislators will be able to reconsider Minnesota's role in establishing a better voting system. Minnesota's passage of NPVIC would move the country 10 electoral votes closer toward meaningful reform.
ADVERTISEMENT
The real race for 270 electoral votes is the one to enact NPVIC. Until then, "The American Race" returns for yet another season.
