Tomorrow many of us will be heading out to the nearest polling station and casting votes for our preferred candidates. We'll return home and watch, later that night, as votes are tallied, hoping that our favored candidate will prevail. In actuality, however, the real decision on who becomes next president does not take place until Dec. 15, when the Electoral College convenes and each elector casts their votes for a presidential nominee.
The 2000 election showed us (and the 2004 election almost showed us), we still have a very flawed system for presidential elections. The Electoral College, as it stands, causes presidential candidates to focus on larger swing states, discourages people who vote in the minority of a state from actually voting and decreases the significance of any minor parties. Rather, elections should be based on the national popular vote - not on the Electoral College.
For those of us who have lived in Wisconsin all our lives, it is hard to imagine a presidential election year go by without our televisions and radios blaring messages from candidates. However, not all states receive this much attention from nominees. In fact, many states receive very little attention at all. According to FairVote, an organization dedicated to reforming the presidential election process, in the 2004 election, candidates spent more money advertising in Florida alone than in 45 other states combined, despite the fact that it only accounted for 6% of the total popular vote.
Traditionally, only swing states, such as Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, receive the brunt of presidential candidates' attention. States that typically vote only for one party are often disregarded - this includes California and Texas. Thus, issues that are important to states that usually vote in favor of one party go unnoticed by the candidates - this discourages voters from participating in the electoral process.
However, just because a state often favors one side does not mean that the entire state agrees - there may actually be a large number of dissenters. For example, New York most often votes Democrat, but there is still a sizable Republican population. These people, ignored by the candidates, are often disillusioned by the electoral system, knowing their votes count for very little as their state sides with the Democratic nominee.
So this small population is completely disregarded and their votes usually go toward nothing. Yet, in a popular vote, their votes would be tallied with the rest of the nation's, allowing these people to voice their actual opinions, rather than being completely ignored. Why would they even bother voting otherwise? A national popular voting system would actually allow their votes to count towards something more.
Minor parties, such as the Green and Libertarian Parties, are marginalized by the presidential electoral process, especially with a 'winner-take-all' mentality in each state. This, unfortunately, leaves us with really only two viable options in electing a candidate who has a chance to win - Democrat or Republican. However, what choice do we have with only two options? Rather, if the election was based on the popular vote, this would open up opportunities for minor parties to come in and become more influential political entities. Consequently, Americans would have more choices than the standard two-party system could ever provide.
Of course, there are a myriad amount of other reasons to ditch the Electoral College. Among these reasons is the fact that it favors voters in less populated states, despite the idea that we live in a country where everyone is supposed to be equal and carry an equal weight in elections. It causes the popular vote to become inconsequential at times, which was shown to us in 2000 and almost again in the 2004 election.
Instead of continuing with this flawed system, we should look to alternatives, the most promising of which is to go simply by the popular vote. Currently, four states have enacted into law bills that cause the state's electors to vote, when the College convenes, for the candidate who has won the national popular vote, rather than the state vote. This system avoids the potentially complicated situation of appending the Constitution, though these bills will not take effect until at least 70 percent of the Electoral College is on board. Hopefully, this bill gains momentum in each state and is passed so that our votes actually count.
Ryan Dashek is a junior majoring in biology. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
