Every four years there is much debate about the electoral college. Some like it, some don’t. Is it fair/not fair? Is there a better way to count the votes?
DJ sent his thoughts. I thought this would be a good post to stir some debate.
Thanks DJ!
***
A few days ago, I was thinking about this election. Besides thinking “Dang, one of these people is going to become our President”, I was also thinking “Wait, why are they gonna be elected like this?” The Electoral College is a good way of determining the President. It is pretty much all a Constitutional Republic asks for- a group of delegates selected by the people choose our President. But part of me asks why we elect them the way we do.
Illinois is a perfect example of this. As many know, Illinois is considered a Democratic stronghold. Rarely does a Republican see statewide or national success in Illinois. But once you get outside of Chicago, the story isn’t that. In fact, there are many areas of Illinois where Republicans really don’t need to run. Heck, even in Chicago there’s a district that is heavily Conservative- but votes Democrat (District 3). The District’s current Representative, Dan Lipinski, was the only Illinois Democrat to vote AGAINST Obamacare. And he didn’t even endorse Obama in 2012.
But if that’s the case… Why is Illinois a Democratic stronghold? Because of Chicago. If Chicago were out of the picture, Illinois would be a leaning Republican state. If you took Cook County out of the race in 2012, the total would be Obama at 1,530,975, and Romney at 1,639,674. Romney would’ve won Illinois if it weren’t for Chicago.
This is a major problem. We have a very large amount of people who believe their votes are worthless- and in many ways, they’re not wrong. Heck, most Presidential candidates set up shop in a maximum of 10 states for the entire election. For Republicans in Illinois, they don’t figure their votes matter. And that impacts down ballot races. Same for Democrats in Texas.
So what am I suggesting? I’m suggesting we follow a different pattern. Have the congressional districts decide the President, with the Senate seats also choosing. An easy way to figure this out:
-The person with the highest vote total in a single district will win one vote; if there is a tie, then the vote will be decided on via recount four weeks later between the top two candidates
-The person with the highest vote total in a state will win at least one vote from the US Senate; if the candidate defeats his/her opponent by at least 5%, then the candidate wins both votes; if they don’t, then the votes are split; if more than two candidates are within 5%, then the top two win the votes
That’s really simple, isn’t it? But there’s one glaring problem… The districts… Going back to Illinois, there is a district that is shaped like earmuffs (4th District). Gerrymandering is a major issue. And I also have a fix for that.
-A district for the US House must not cross county lines
So one district may represent one county. District 1 in Illinois represents Cook County, while District 2 represents Will and Kankakee, for example. This would also make it a lot easier for citizens who aren’t very aware of their district. What county are you in? Well then you’re in District __.
Is this a perfect fix? No. But our Presidential elections need something different. Will it be hard to perfectly track? Yes. Will it be worth it?
Let me put it this way… We’re giving someone the ability to wipe entire nations off the face of the earth with the push of a button. We’re giving someone complete control of one of the most powerful militaries on earth.
I’d say that it’s more than worth it.
And this will give candidates a good reason to actually visit more than just a few states. Many districts will be battleground districts, and they will be very important.
Here’s the source for the election statistics.
