By Steve Brawner
© 2020 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.
There’s a saying: Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Here’s a new one: Don’t make the good the enemy of the better. The Electoral College definitely could be better.
The Electoral College has served us reasonably well for two-and-a-half centuries, but its flaws are being exposed. Thanks largely to its winner-take-all system, the loser of the popular vote has won two of the past five elections. The country’s deepening red-blue division means only a few swing states are in play, allowing candidates to ignore the rest – including Arkansas. Unless you live in one of those swing states, your vote really doesn’t affect the outcome.
This election, like recent ones, will be decided in those swing states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. If 39,000 voters in those three states had voted for Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, an entirely different set of people on my Facebook feed would be mad all the time. Clinton lost despite having 2.9 million more votes nationwide. Meanwhile, the 2000 election was decided by 537 votes in Florida.
So guess where the candidates will be focusing their attention? Not blood red Arkansas. The Democratic candidate will ignore us, and Trump can take us for granted.
Supporters of the Electoral College say it helps small states like Arkansas, but that’s not necessarily true. Because of its winner-take-all system, it potentially gives outsized influence to big states. A candidate can win the 270 needed Electoral College votes by winning the 12 biggest states by one vote each and not even be on the ballot in the other 38. Continue reading
