Dismantling the Electoral College would be foolhardy and bad for voters

The count was far from complete Tuesday night, but even with their candidate holding an early edge, there were the lefties demanding an end to the Electoral College.

Which, for many residents of the United States, could not be a worse idea.

The College is part of the grand design of our founding fathers, who built a constitutional republic that has stood the test of time and withstood foolhardy efforts to destroy it in the nearly 250 years our nation has been. It recognizes the design of the federal government as an extension of the states, much like our House of Representatives and Senate.

The College has failed to agree with the popular vote five times in our history, the first three between 1824 and 1888, the more recent in 2000 and 2016. The largest popular vote difference that was not in line with the electors was 1824, when Andrew Jackson had a 10.5% advantage but John Quincy Adams became president. The closest was the 1/2 of 1 percent margin enjoyed by Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000.

In the latter — remember the “hanging chads”? — recounts ordered by the Florida Supreme Court were stopped by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled 7-2 that the methods of counting in different parts of that state violated the federal constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The high court then ruled, 5-4, that any proposed remedies would be in violation of both United States Code and Florida Election Code.

Donald Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by about 2.8 million votes — a 2% difference –and the liberals have been screaming to dismantle the Electoral College ever since.

Actually, before that — after Richard Nixon won by a razor-thin margin (popular, also won electoral) against Hubert Humphrey, the calls began for a direct electon. A Massachusetts mathematician, Alan Natapoff, had an answer. From Discovery magazine:

“His starting point was the concept of voting power. In a fair election, he saw, each voter’s power boils down to this: What is the probability that one person’s vote will be able to turn a national election? The higher the probability, the more power each voter commands. To figure out these probabilities, Natapoff devised his own model of a national electorate — a more realistic model, he thought, than the ones the quoted experts were always using. Almost always, he found, individual voting power is higher when funneled through districts — such as states — than when pooled in one large, direct election. It is more likely, in other words, that your one vote will determine the outcome in your state and your state will then turn the outcome of the electoral college, than that your vote will turn the outcome of a direct national election. A voter therefore, Natapoff found, has more power under the current electoral system.

“The idea is to give every voter the largest equal share of national voting power possible.”

Here’s an easier comparison. In the 1960 World Series, Pittsburgh won four games to the Yankees’ three. But New York outscored the Pirates, 55-27. Without the Electoral College, the Yankees win by virtue of their “popular vote” over the team that won by the rules.

You don’t have to be Bill Mazeroski to know that’s wrong.


Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)


Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today