Electoral College

Why hasn't the electoral college gone the way of the passenger pigeon? Doesn't this method of electing the president seem a little outdated?

Unless I'm mistaken (which is always a possibility), our founding fathers implemented this system because they just didn't really trust a true democratic process . . . let's face it, there's just some folks you don't want to see in the voting booth casting their bid for the most powerful man in the world (how about nearly everyone under the age of 25 . . . I shudder every time I read the Daily Illini). And so they used this system of allowing individuals to represent their state, in proportion to population, and to allow them to make the decision of whom to vote for.

Unfortunately, nearly all of our states (save two, I believe) have all their electoral votes go to the candidate with the majority vote in their voting booths. So even if a candidate just narrowly wins a state (let's say 51 percent to 49), he still gets every electoral vote! That seems nuts! Why not divvy them up percentage-wise? (Again, I think there are 2 states that actually do)

So what happens during this time is that candidates completely ignore states like ours since it's not really up for grabs. If McCain put a dime into trying to sway Illinois voters, he'd be nuts . . . same with Barama (sic) in the deep south. They're just not taking certain states and they know it.

And so what is the effect on voters? Well, it's no secret that voter turnout is pathetic; around 50 percent, if I recall. But is it really any surprise? Why take the time to vote in a state where the decision is basically predetermined? For example, let's say I'm a republican in Massachusetts, which historically falls to the democrats. Why even bother punching a vote for McCain? It's basically a wasted vote.

And so what happens every four years is each candidate battles overs the "swing states"; those that could go either way. Each voter in those states is casting a vote that is so much more important than my vote here in Illinois. All the campaign money goes into those states, hoping that winning the majority vote in Ohio or Florida will lead to the required number of votes from the college.

So in essence, votes in certain states are more important than votes in others. This seems absurd in a national election. The process needs reform.

I say do one of the following:

1) Get rid of it the electoral college. Majority vote wins.

2) Weight the states. If you win 60 percent of the votes, you win 60 percent of the electoral college votes. The math could get tricky though . . .

3) Flip a coin. Barama and McCain sit in a room and one of them calls heads or tails. Winner is president. Think of the drama!

It seems with 1) and 2), voter turnout, in theory, would grow immensely. Now everyone's vote counts equally and is therefore important. Many would probably take more of an interest in politics, as candidates may now actually campaign in other states, not just the swing states.

Why don't I ever hear of someone proposing to reform this system? You'd think after that farcical situation in the 2000 election that someone would have said "enough is enough."