It is the bottom of the ninth inning in game seven of the
World Series. The score: 3-3, with two strikes, and runners positioned on
1st and 3rd. The stadium is quiet. And here we go… the windup…and the pitch;
it’s a fast b…he swings, walloping that ball right over the 1st base line.
Runners advance and… he scores! A base hit drives home the winning run! Fans
are wild! Players run onto the field, hugging and slapping each other on the
back! What a match! Fans sure got their money’s worth. Let’s give a quick
recap about how the games lined up while our cameramen move onto the field…
Can anyone imagine questioning who won this series on the basis of how many
runs were scored by each team during the seven games that were played? Of
course, not! There would be no arguing, at least not about that. In the
World Series, you don’t count up all the runs. Teams must win over and over
again. Then, that being the case, why are there people who dispute that the
2000 election was stolen from Al Gore on the basis of the popular vote?
George Bush won each state. And everyone knows that our national elections
are not decided on the popular vote, they are decided on the basis of each
win counted among the 50 states
Still, some would argue that this method of electing our president should be
changed. (See: "Calif.
bill would change electoral college”)
I would be the first to counter, never. And there are plenty of reasons that
I should win this debate.
First, the Electoral College corrects for defects. It
balances out errors and faults in the election process. Mathematicians will
explain that votes cannot be counted accurately within a half of a million.
In a close election, having the electoral college in place corrects for
deficiencies. Indeed, multiple wins in multiple venues produces a stronger
candidate. Therefore, our current system compensates for inaccuracies. Any
person voted in as chief executive is a product of multiple constituents; 50
elections, as opposed to one.
Next, although we have a national citizenship, we don’t have a national
people. Those serving in the national government are a reflection of 50
state peoples; multiple peoples residing in different states, each state
represented in the federal system of government. Remember, each state
ratified the constitution. There have never been a national people making
national decisions. Weak states have a place under the electoral system that
wouldn’t exist otherwise. By casting all a state’s votes one way, gives
every state the importance it was meant to have.
Finally, any sort of national election would distort the power of the
executive branch; giving it a power that no other branch could
counterbalance. We wouldn’t have a president; we would end up with a
dictator because a national plebiscite puts the president above every other
branch. This is why electors in the college cast their votes to reflect the
majority in their state. If there were proportional votes cast, again, there
would be a national plebiscite.
People have been screaming about our antiquated election process since
before our 43rd president took office. How would the citizens of New York
feel if the Yankees were stripped of their World Series trophy on the basis
of how many runs were scored throughout the series rather than how many
games were won? How about Chicago? I am willing to wager that a lot of
people would be up in arms. In all sporting events, there are winners and
losers; even if it is by a hair. That’s why the saying goes, there’s first
place and there’s not first place. |
