The Genius of the Electoral College

The electoral college is a joke, they say. We hear that every four years. The same gripe, especially by the losers.

Most people don’t understand how this works, so they have no chance of understanding why it exists. And some progressives, because they don’t bother to understand, think it’s a really stupid, antiquated idea. In actual fact, it’s a genius compromise.

In most states today we have a concentration of liberal and progressive thought in cities, the population centers. Geographically and by county, they disproportionately represent the voting power. Nowhere is this truer than Washington State. Of the 39 counties in Washington, 5 have the largest cities that house 71% of the population. King county houses 30% alone. That allows them to carry the liberal policies for the state as a whole.

There are disparate needs and issues in each county, particularly when one separates the state by its major geographic barrier, the Cascade mountains. The climate between eastern and western Washington is vastly different, as are the predominant professions. They have differing needs and interests.

But because the population is disproportionately concentrated, those centers of concentration get to dictate the interests of the whole state. This is, ultimately, not in the state’s best interest. It effectively has disenfranchised the majority of the counties and their people.

This is the exact situation our founders wrestled with when trying to balance the interests of smaller states against larger states. They ingeniously invented the Electoral College to mitigate this situation, as it dissipates some of the larger states’ voting strength while recognizing the equally important interests of smaller states.

It also addresses another important issue, that of national candidates having to consider the importance of the electoral votes each state possesses. The electoral votes of swing states become important, requiring candidates to visit and campaign in those states, states which would otherwise never be considered essential voting blocks. When there are fewer votes to fight over, each vote becomes more important. Thus, candidates must broaden their campaigns and their visits across a wider geography and make themselves and their intentions more widely known.

There is enough divisiveness in this country already. Eliminating the Electoral College would only further isolate varied interests and exacerbate that divide.

Yes, but it amounts to unequal representation, you say. Actually, not so.

Every state has sovereign rights, and even in this day and age of increased federalism, those still remain very important. They give, if used correctly, the states leverage to address their peculiar needs over the those of the federal government. That states have at times subverted their powers for federal favors does not make those powers less important. If anything, it highlights their need.

A base level of equality and power is required for all states to peacefully coexist and have a meaningful share of power and decision making. Because France is smaller than China does not make their issues and needs unimportant.

Disenfranchising states will be the consequence of eliminating the Electoral College. It will result in gross discontent in many states and could result in disastrous consequences to the Union. This is, after all, the UNITED States of America, not the separate states. All states must retain certain sovereign rights and powers, just as every country traditionally has, in order to remain viable and healthy. Eliminate that and there is one mighty big reason to not remain United.