On December 1, 2016

Making votes count with the Electoral College

Dear Editor,
The framers of the US Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process.  During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state’s favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country.  Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose.  After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature.  The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (always two) plus the number of its U.S. representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of a state’s population as determined in the Census).
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the state becomes that state’s electors—so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a state wins all the electors of that state.
The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process.  Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged.  Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem.  The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.
This would eliminate the “winner take all” system thus allowing for all the votes to count.  A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes is taken into account rather than the “all or nothing” system currently in existence.  Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.
As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.
For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received (in each state) times the number of electoral votes (in each state) results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.
Joe Bialek, Cleveland, Ohio

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

Closing schools doesn’t fix Vermont’s education affordibility problems

October 30, 2024
By Margaret MacLean Editor’s note: Margaret MacLean, of Peacham, is a retired Vermont teacher and award-winning principal. She is the founding executive director of the Vermont Rural Education Collaborative, a past employee of the Rural School and Community Trust, and served on the Vermont State Board of Education.  Roxbury parents can meet most of the…

Making Vermont a place working families want to call home

October 30, 2024
By Rebecca Holcombe Editor’s note: Rebecca Holcombe is a Vermont Representative from Windsor-Orange 2 who served as the Vermont Secretary of Education from 2014 to 2018. Vermonters suffer from unsustainable increases in the cost of everything from property taxes to healthcare. Too many people are working hard and stretching Social Security checks but still worry…

Don’t be fooled by false promises

October 30, 2024
Dear Editor,  There is no simple solution to the challenges that Vermonters face. There needs to be a delicate balance between what, on the surface, seems like appealing short-term solutions to the cost of living for all Vermonters versus the vision for long-term planning that creates financial stability and growth into the future.  Do not…

Context matters

October 30, 2024
Dear Editor, In an October 23 letter to the Mountain Times, Steve Berry wrote, “John Kerry stated at a World Economic Forum panel, ‘Our First Amendment stands as a major block (to getting things done).’”  You may wonder why Mr. Berry uses such odd syntax, placing part of the quote in parentheses. Maybe it’s because…