.png)
 |
| Frank Bencomo Class of 2018 |
It is also true that there is nothing in the constitution that gives American voters the right to choose their president. However, given the expanded role of the executive it is natural that people will demand a larger say in the selection. Currently we exist in an interesting hybrid. Citizens in their respective states vote on their choice of a representative to the electoral college who has pledged to vote for a certain candidate. With 538 electoral votes up for grabs, the race is on to achieve 270 which will make a candidate the victor. This means that on occasion the president-elect will not be the candidate which won the popular vote. A clear example of this is the most recent election in which we saw Donald Trump receive 306 electoral votes (57% of them) but received only 46% of the vote, while close to 3 million less people voted for him than his opponent. This means that the executive policy in this country is being directed by a candidate who has more people who oppose him than people who favor him. As the urban-rural divide in this country grows, we will see a progressive increase in this difference between the electoral college vote and the popular vote.
Defenders of the electoral college will often point to the map to the right, to demonstrate the “dangers” of switching to the popular vote system. They speak of how the blue urban sections won the popular vote and how they are so much smaller than the large red section that that red section would become the minority vote under a removal of the electoral college. They are right. These sections of the country would indeed have a smaller say in the election of a president. Every system of voting possible which has parties that disagree will make someone the minority unless both parties are of equal size. The popular vote system would simply do a better job of representing each person as an equal when voting in national sections. The map to the left is the electoral map of the 2016 election, adjusted for voting population. It now shows a more accurate portrayal of the near 50/50 split of our country between left of center and right of center. The argument of paying attention to territorial size over population falls flat on its face in another regard; simply, in America we believe that all humans are created equally. Humans, therefore, and not square acres of land should be the determining factor in elections. There is also an argument that is made that if popular vote is allowed to replace the electoral college that some interests will be forgotten. Dr. Gary Gregg of the University of Louisville says, “If the United States does away with the Electoral College, future presidential elections will go to candidates and parties willing to cater to urban voters and skew the nation’s policies toward big-city interests. Small-town issues and rural values will no longer be their concern.” Again, there is a risk in any form of voting possible which has parties that disagree that someone will end up the minority. Also, in America we are not perfectly tied to a party or political side based on location. There are liberals in Texas and conservatives in California. How much their vote matters should not change if they move during the course of their lives as so many of us do. One vote should be one vote. Only under a flawed system could we have such a far right president with so many moderates and liberals participating in the voting process. Currently, we have an administration that does not cater in the slightest to America’s urban centers in terms of their issues, values, or concerns. Is this not as bad as the alternative? We should not maintain a system that favors one side over the other. We should move on to a system that reflects both the reality of our nation and its values. All land may not be created equal, but all humans surely are. Frank Bencomo, of Louisville, Ky., is a junior McConnell Scholar studying political science.