As President Bush’s approval ratings continue to plummet, many Americans may be asking themselves, “What if Al Gore had won the election?” Then many of them quickly realize that he did win the election—at least the popular vote—and, embittered, yet resigned, they quickly go back to expressing their frustration with the current President.

However, it is time to confront the fact that our system is a flawed one—and not only because of what happened in 2000. As the 2008 Presidential campaign is already underway, and as states like Iowa and New Hampshire are about to become exalted, while states like Kansas and New York are about to become ignored, it’s time to drop out of our failing college.

The National Popular Vote Movement, an organization comprised of many former members of Congress, has proposed a bill which would make every state’s electors—who are currently bound by their individual state’s electoral procedure—bound to support the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would win the presidency—a novel concept, I know. Legislatures across the country should shake off the inertia of tradition and get on board with this plan.

After all, the time of the Electoral College has passed. Our Founding Fathers created the current system in order to protect the interests of small states and to preserve a much-desired federalism. They also shared a belief that designated state electors would be well-educated and engaged citizens, who would have more insight than the populace—many of whom were illiterate, uninformed, and days, if not weeks, away from Washington.

But times have changed. Electors are no longer chosen for their intellect, but are mere messengers of the state’s electoral vote. And people are more informed today than our Founding Fathers could have ever imagined. Thanks to technology, nothing but disinterest prevents the average citizen from having just as much information as the elector.

So what are the current problems? Too much of the country is ignored. In particular, why should a candidate’s stance on swing-state concerns like ethanol—a hot button issue for Iowa’s farmers—determine whether or not they end up in the White House? The Founders strove for equality among the states, not unfettered favoritism. Take California for example, the largest state, whose population is nearly 70 times that of the smallest state, Wyoming. California’s 55 electoral votes is only 18 times Wyoming’s three, meaning that a vote in Wyoming potentially has four times the impact of a vote in California. Shouldn’t every state be a “battleground” state, as opposed to the select 13 featured in the 2004 election? Shouldn’t voters in Kansas have as much influence in the election as voters in Texas?

The other main problem of the current system is voter apathy. The question is often asked: Why do only half of eligible voters vote in presidential elections? America is plagued by a culture of futility—many people simply don’t believe that their vote actually counts, that their vote can really make a difference. While I’d like to believe that they are wrong, the inequalities of the Electoral College would suggest otherwise. It actively discourages voters in both the majority and minority because voters in over half of the country know well before going to the polls who is going to win their state.

With the 2008 presidential election well underway, one can only hope that the rhetoric of the campaign will not focus solely on spreading democracy to Iraq, but on improving democracy on the home front as well.



Nicholas J. Melvoin ’08, a Crimson editorial editor, is a government concentrator in Lowell House.