Speech - Lucy Whitman Sandmeyer

Our Political System Needs a Facelift

            In fifth grade we, Mr. Givan’s class, had a very important debate with Ms. Wilson’s class over the system of government in the United States. As a class we were assigned a position and each one of us had a minute to present our findings. Ms. Wilson’s class held that the U.S. is a democracy. We held that it is a republic. We won the debate according to the definition of a republic but what neither class realized is we were both wrong. As a country, we boast ultimate equality for all. We value our freedoms and liberties. Every man is created equal: a common mantra used indiscriminately between parties. Yet, we are hypocrites in many ways. “What?” you say, “We are?” We are! We fight wars on the basis of our democratic principles. We claim superiority because every US citizen has equality under the law and in the voting process. We are incredibly misguided. What if I told you over 4 million US citizens, almost 2% of the population, didn’t get to vote for the president? Everyone in the US territories, even though they are citizens, can’t vote in presidential elections (The Trouble With the Electoral College). That’s like telling everybody that lives in Los Angeles that they suddenly can’t vote. Even more instances of inequity arise when we look to felon voting rights or Voter ID laws. The most glaring example of voter injustice, however, applies to every single person who “votes” in the election of our chief executive. That violation of ideals comes in the form of the Electoral College.

Everyone gets unsure and unhappy if the Electoral College gets brought up in conversation. Not uncommon reactions vary from “The Electoral College is dumb,” and “I don’t even get it,” to “but why though?” All of these thoughts are justified in the face of such an antiquated institution. In fact, Electoral College reform is the second most proposed amendment to the constitution (Crash Course In Our Dysfunctional Electoral College). Little progress has been made still, mostly because of the complicated nature of all amendment processes and an overall public disinterest in or ignorance of the topic. A system that mostly works is better than having to deal with finding and agreeing on a system that works just a little bit better right?

Of course not. The Electoral College isn’t just frustrating because it adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary, step in the election of the president, it also doesn’t follow the national values we hold so dear. On the surface, the Electoral College consists of 538 people who vote for the president in the United States based on the popular vote per state (How The Electoral College Works). People immediately criticize this process as unjust because each electorate is allowed to outright ignore the population he/she supposedly represents, about half a million people, with no legal repercussions. The blatant violation of our democratic ideals manages to anger quite a few people. Unfortunately for us, it keeps going. 

 “Every vote counts” misleads Americans to believe each person who votes in the election gets an equal vote. Even ignoring the injustice in the territories, geography plays a huge role in how a vote weighs in the elections. Every state and DC—who got the electoral vote in 1964 with the 23^rd Amendment—gets a minimum of three electoral votes and more according to population size, mirroring the set up in Congress. This would be all fine and dandy if it meant fair representation of everyone but, surprise, it doesn’t. Some states, because of their small population size, should only get one to two electoral votes instead of three or four, which ends up taking away electors from the bigger states such as California and Texas (Does Your Vote Count? The Electoral College Explained). In a winner-takes-all system like the Electoral College, this matters. If a presidential candidate focused on winning half the popular vote in states whose vote counts more, thereby winning them the full electoral vote of the state, they could win the 270 votes need in the Electoral College to win the presidency with only 22% of the popular vote (The Trouble With the Electoral College).

But the Electoral College protects small states, right? No it forces the candidates to focus on swing states of which two are small states (The Trouble With the Electoral College). But it prevents candidates from focusing on regions and encourages them to spread out across the country (Posner)! No it forces the candidates to focus on swing states, which means they don’t campaign in the others. But it encourages the people in Swing States to make a more educated decision (Posner)! True, but it discourages minority party members in other states to not vote at all . But..! No, the Electoral College twists the democratic process and makes running for president a game of who can convince a small, unrepresentative part of the population to vote for them.

 So we should have a simple system where the popular vote decides the president right? Well, not exactly. The founders had the right idea when they first developed the Electoral College because it becomes complicated to maintain a majority system, not a plurality, while counting the popular vote. Independent candidates split the vote enough that it becomes entirely possible for no one to win the majority, introducing many important questions. How are we going to track the votes? As we saw in Florida in 2000, it’s a difficult process. How are we going to deal with independents? Wouldn’t keeping the Electoral College be easier than voting and having to revote when no one gets the majority? These are all valid questions but, luckily, can be answered without continuing the current, flawed system. The alternative is something called Instant-Runoff Voting or sometimes Ranked Choice Voting.

IRV is actually a simple process that solves most of the issues we see within the Electoral College and even some others. It stipulates that the voter ranks their candidates in order from favorite to least favorite. When all the votes are in and counted, if no one has won the majority, the least popular candidate is eliminated and the votes recounted (FairVote). This process repeats until a candidate wins the majority and we can all rejoice or leave the country in disgust. IRV prevents an expensive revote, as well as opens the race up to every voter instead of the voters living only in swing states. It also encourages people to vote for their preferred party, whether it is a Democrat in Georgia, a Republican in New York or an independent. Additionally, independents don’t have to fear that by voting for their candidate, it ensures the win of their least favorite. For example, if Trump runs as an independent, he might split the vote and guarantee a democratic win. For some, this sounds excellent, for others, it’s terrifying. All IRV does is level the playing field. No one vote counts more, independent ideas can be taken more seriously and campaigns can focus more on platforms that appeal to the entire population, like expanding our democratic ideals to our own citizens. The best part is IRV can be instituted gradually (FairVote). Even though it works best without the Electoral College system in place, both systems can work in tandem to transition nicely out of our problematic system into one that can make real political change.

Many of our current problems with government, unbeknownst to even us, stem from the unfair voting process. In the 2012 presidential election, 57.5% of the eligible voting population participated (2012 Voter Turnout Report). In this year’s pivotal Kentucky gubernatorial race only 30.7% did (Kentucky Governor General Elections). With the more accessible system of IRV, public participation is slated to increase since more people will feel their voice matters. With all the disapproval the public is spouting with politics as a whole, a new and improved voting system would be a welcome change.

Works Cited

Cowan, Sarah K. OP-Chart: How Much Is Your Vote Worth? Digital image. The New York Times, 2008. Web.

Crash Course In Our Dysfunctional Electoral College. Perf. Jack Rakove. TedxStanford, 2013. Web.

Does Your Vote Count? The Electoral College Explained. Perf. Christina Greer. Ted-Ed. N.p., 2012. Web.

FairVote. "What Is RCV?" FairVote. The Center for Voting and Democracy, 2014. Web.

How the Electoral College Works. CGP Grey. N.p., 2011. Web.

"Kentucky Governor General Election." WKYT. N.p., 2015. Web.

Posner, Richard A. "In Defense of the Electoral College." Slate View From Chicago (n.d.): n. pag. 2012. Web.

Proportional Electoral College Map. Digital image. Optimist123, 2012. Web.

The Trouble with the Electoral College. CGP Grey, 2011. Web.

"2012 Voter Turnout Report." Bipartisan Policy Center. Bipartisan Policy Center, 2012. Web.

What If the Electoral College Is Tied. CGP Grey, 2012. Web.