The Electoral College

The way to fix this problem is currently employed in the states of Maine and Nebraska. These two states distribute their 4 Electoral Votes in a different manner. Two of the state’s votes go to the candidate who wins the state by popular vote, the same as the remainder of the states. The other two, however, are given to each Representative district. The winner of each district is awarded a single vote, therefore permitting the loser of the state to still get one of four Electoral Votes.

This system would counter the Electoral monopoly of the big cities. If this system were implemented, rural Representative districts would have a stronger say in who would become the next President of the United States. Each state would be awarded Electoral Votes equal to twice its number of Representatives. (This would mean that the number of electoral votes required to win an election would rise dramatically.) Exactly one-half of those votes would be awarded to the winner of the state, regardless of the margin of victory. The remaining half of the votes would be distributed- one to each of the state’s Representative districts. The winner of each district would then be awarded a single Electoral Vote.

This system might also encourage more political participation. If the small districts each had an Electoral Vote to give out, more people would feel that their single vote would make a difference. Indeed, under this system, a single vote that swings a single district could determine an Election. Small communities would also be out from under the shadow of the larger cities, for even if the city did carry the state, the district could award its Electoral Vote to whichever candidate it saw fit.

Another advantage to this system would be that in many instances, large states are sharply divided. What might be good for New York City might not be good for Buffalo, but since NYC is larger, it could carry the state despite Buffalo’s voters. Today’s political giants might not look closely at a district-by-district map of votes, because they don’t need to. They only need to know that they won the state. However, if the candidate who won the election lost most of the counties in New York, he might take more interest in the problems and concerns of those areas and address them. This would encourage political officials to take more interest in the people, and take a closer look on even the states that they won.

Today’s voting system is not bad, but it could be far better. Big cities and their sponsored parties can control entire states, even tough they only encompass a tiny fraction of the state and might know nothing about the rest of it. Runners for political office tend to ignore the needs and desires of small cities and low-populace areas and campaign in only the large cities that control the states. Changing the system would bring these problems out and address them permanently.