Should I be concerned over Electoral College/Popular Vote splits?

This is part 19 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


19. Is there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern?

A few years ago, I had looked into the electoral college. I had looked at alternative plans and after weighing the pros and cons of each, I determined that the fairest system was the electoral college as it’s set up. I’m not saying it’s perfect; I don’t believe such a system exists.

First, you have to remember that it’s the states that elect the President, not the people. Each state casts ballots based on how the people of that state vote. In other words, the presidential election is based on fifty-one popular votes, not one, and in all but two states, the candidate that wins the popular vote, gets all the electoral votes for that state.

Politics aside, it’s not hard to see that in order to win the popular vote, the candidates would need to only concentrate on the areas where the most people live and make them happy, i.e., Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, etc. The Electoral College forces candidates to pay attention to areas of the country that would otherwise be ignored if we had a straight popular vote. You may not like Donald Trump as a person, but his message resonated with people across the entire country, while Hillary Clinton’s did not.

Hillary’s message only resonated in 457 counties across the country. That’s 15.6% of the 3113 counties in the country. Liberals would like us to believe that people in those few countries are smarter than the rest of the country and don’t have a problem saying it. Their condescension is infuriating. As much as liberals scream about fairness, the Popular Vote is the epitome of unfair, but that’s what they’re calling for.

Another reason the electoral college is a good idea is it shields the rest of the country from the stupidity exercised in California: allowing illegal, non-citizens to vote, and possibly vote in federal elections, which should be against federal law in my opinion, but regardless of the legality, 100 million illegal aliens voting in California won’t have an effect on the Presidential election because of the Electoral College, but it would have an effect if we had a Popular Vote.

In the end, though, it’s the 30 of 50 states the Trump won that counts, because people are fond of forgetting that this country is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers devised a system that keeps the 10 biggest States/Cities from ruling the rest of the country by default because of population, but the system still retains an advantage for those with the biggest populations by allowing them larger numbers of electoral votes. What keeps the system more fair than a purely Popular Vote, is that the smaller states still have a voice. I know, it’s not an idea that liberals are comfortable with–opposing views having a voice–but I believe it’s a brilliant system, and actually fairer than any alternative I’ve seen.

Is there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern? No. I will never be concerned over a split between a system that pushes a candidate to campaign across the entire country or just the major metropolises.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.