Why the Electoral College Sucks and should be abolished

Why the Electoral College sucks, and should be abolished.

I’m not going to mince words: The Electoral College sucks, and we should abolish it post haste.

I mean come on, it doesn’t even have a sports team. How lame is that?

Whenever I bring up my dislike for this severely outdated system, I’m generally confronted with the trite response that the system ensures small states have a say because otherwise the states with the smallest populations would be ignored by candidates because there aren’t enough votes to make their time worthwhile.  

That’s why the Electoral College was instituted, because small states didn’t trust big states and thought their voice would be drowned out by their more populous counterparts. So, as a compromise, the founding fathers proposed a system where each state was given a number of electors based off the number of representatives of each state.

Just in case you forget, the number of representatives is based off of a state’s population.

So smaller states have fewer representatives, and, you guessed it: fewer electors.

How the hell did they fall for this? It’s no damn different! The only thing I can think of is that people back then were too busy struggling to survive to really think the whole thing through and bought it. Granted today we’d be too busy creeping on Facebook and worshiping moronic celebrities so we’d still fall for it. 

So as we’ve seen, small states still have less say in the matter than large states. So that line of reasoning is out the window. But it’s not in my style to let things lie. No, I beat the dead horse.

Presidential candidates already spent most of their time in a few states. Go to Politico.com and look up President Obama’s and Governor Romney’s campaign schedules. They’ve spent more time in Ohio than most people who live in Ohio. Why? Because it has a good number of electoral votes, and it’s considered a “swing” state. 

And no, a “swing state” is not a state with an open relationship.

The way things are now, candidates only spend time in states that are “up for grabs.” Obama only comes to California when he’s trying to raise money. Romney barely comes here at all. Why? Because voting Republican in California makes about as much sense as Lady Gaga’s wardrobe. And that takes me to my next point. Segue for the win! 

All the time I was growing up, the importance of voting was drummed in to my head. It’s your responsibility to vote since we all have a voice. In the words of Sherman T Potter (Had he not been censored) Horse shit! We do NOT have a voice in many states. California hasn’t voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 1988. Texas hasn’t voted for a Democratic candidate since 1976. If I were a Dem living in Texas, I’d likely only bother voting on local issues, kind of like I’d be tempted to do here in California if it wasn’t for the fact I don’t really like either of the candidates. 

Now, I know you’re thinking, “What else would we do, Jarrod? Don’t just complain without proposing a solution!”

Now would I do that? Well, actually I might. But not in this case. My solution is simple: Nationwide popular vote.

 Under a nationwide popular vote, a ballot cast for Obama in Texas may not help him win that state, but who cares, because it still counts towards his total number of votes. Conversely, a vote for Romney in California would still actually mean something, as he could add that to his total. Isn’t that truly what one person, one vote is all about?

If we went to a straight nation-wide popular vote, every vote in every state would matter. And perhaps as an added bonus the campaigns could save some money and go on a national scale. In turn that money could be used for something a bit more productive. Like anything.