The Electoral College

By Zach Bush

20161219-01: Mistakenly listed New Hampshire as not having a "winner-take-all" method. Correct to Nebraska. 

Every four years there is a renewed interest in the Electoral College of the United States. The wake of the 2016 presidential election has been no different.

The general complaints go like this: candidate X lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, therefore the Electoral College (EC) is bad. The structure “prevents the tyranny of the majority” when it benefits you, it’s “antiquated” and “outdated” when it produces a result you do not prefer.

This year marks the first time, in my admittedly limited experience, that the losers are openly calling not for an abolishment of the EC, but to utilize it to achieve the result that they prefer. They do so on the basis that the original intent of the EC was to prevent the election of a tyrant.

I will therefore address the following claims:

1. The Electoral College prevents less populated states from being ignored by the candidates, thus requiring the candidates to consider their points of view when developing their platform. In other words, this prevents a tyranny of the majority over the minority. A similar form of this argument pits the interests of cities versus the interests of rural districts;
2. The Electoral College was put in place to prevent the election of an unqualified person or a tyrant.

To do this, I will examine each claim from both a theoretical (i.e. intent) and practical (i.e. does it actually do what is claimed).

Through the eyes of a non-voter

Things can get pretty lonely for non-voters in the months leading up to a major election. Irregardless of why they choose not to vote, the fact remains they are still a minority and often the target of discriminatory attack (e.g. Chris Matthews). Personally, I can attest that this experience, while difficult, provides an opportunity to better empathize with all different types of minorities.

Empathy is not synonymous with sympathy. Sympathy acknowledges pain. Empathy understands pain. To empathize with someone you must have either shared an experience or be able to put yourself in another's shoes.

For some, the inability to understand why someone chooses not to vote leads to outright emotional attacks and, in rare cases, physical assault. I would like to offer the following thought experiment (inspired by the closing arguments from A Time to Kill) to those who cannot understand why myself, and thousands of others, choose not to participate in elections.

Your "right" to vote and a note about the Founding Fathers

I realize that this post is a bit late as most have already voted and key states pretty much decided. This post is intended to challenge people to reconsider what they are implicitly doing when they cast a vote. I highly doubt this will change anyone's actions tomorrow or 2 or 4 years from now. If I can influence one person, perhaps they can influence another.

Before reading this post I urge you to read the essay A Way to be Free, by Robert LeFevre. It truly changed my life and I think it could change yours as well. I do not think I could write anything better and I will not try. I will keep my argument as concise as possible.