A long-lasting relic of pre-Civil War mentality remains within our presidential electoral process: the Electoral College.

Long ago, when worry over large states dominating the influence of politics over the smaller states was prevalent, the founding fathers created a compromise – the national election for president would allow states to select electors to choose the president. The number of electors per state would be dependent upon a state’s population in proportion to the rest of the nation. Thus, the apportionment used in determining the number of congressional representatives for a given state was used in determining the number of electors that state would receive.

A few problems arose out of this. For one, it allowed the smaller states greater representation in terms of choosing a president than a larger state. Take, for example, the state of Alaska, which has one of the lowest populations out of any state in the nation, and compare it to California, a heavily populated state. Each state receives electors, equal to the number of representatives and senators that state has. Alaska has 3, California has 55.

Traditionally, congressional representatives are supposed to account for about 650,000 citizens per district. However, there exists a stipulation within the Constitution that no state shall be unrepresented – that is, no matter what the population of a given state, it shall get at least one congressional representative. Additionally, each state receives two senators to represent them in the Senate.

So proportionally, Alaska has “more” representation even though it has only 3 electors. Alaska’s population is about 625,000, which means that each elector in the Electoral College represents about 208,000 citizens. Conversely, each of California’s 55 electors represents about 660,000 citizens. This gives Alaska’s electors more “punch” when it comes to selecting a president, and creates an unproportional representation of U.S. citizens’ votes.

Another problem with the Electoral College is that it can create a winner who isn’t democratically chosen by the people. That’s exactly what happened in 2000 with George W. Bush, and has happened a few other times in American history.

A president that can conceivably win an election without winning a popular vote of its citizenry cannot govern legitimately – he wasn’t their choice to rule! That’s how many Americans felt when Bush took office in 2001. If we want to avoid future incidents like that, we should consider abolishing the Electoral College.

Finally, there is the problem of the electors themselves: they are not legally bound to cast a vote for whomever their state elected! No law says that they have to vote the way their state has voted. This can be especially disastrous in close elections.

The Electoral College worked well in the infancy of America, where a less-educated population may not have voted in their own best interests. But we’re living in the information revolution: people are highly educated, even if they succumb to reality TV shows over national news. The Electoral College is not democratic by any means, and leaves us vulnerable to selecting a president who doesn’t represent the will of the people.

It’s time to remove the Electoral College and to rely upon a new method of selecting the president – one that can ensure that the citizenry is well represented within the walls of the White House.

> Comments