Not The Founders' Fault
Many of the people upset with the election results have been calling the electoral college outdated. Here is my defense of the process.
And before I begin, I want to note how ironic it is that Hillary also won more popular votes than Obama during the ’08 primaries. Poor Hillary.
1.) At the time it was established, Virginia was the monster state -- analogous to a New York and California combined today. The other 12 states wanted to have a fair voice in Presidential elections too. Interestingly, the states who lobbied hardest for the Electoral College were the New England states -- particularly Massachusetts and New York. If Democrats in New York City and Boston don't like the electoral college, they have only themselves to blame. The Framers work is the single greatest collection of political minds ever seen. They had not only the unique experience of living through true tyranny, but also the mental fortitude to resolve it in such a way that resulted in the most powerful country on the face of the earth.
2.) If only winning the popular vote was needed, Donald wouldn’t have campaigned day and night down the stretch in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio (oddly, Hillary was a ghost in the Midwest down the stretch). He would have strategically campaigned in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. He won the swing states he campaigned hard in at the end. Therefore, it is not crazy to believe that if the rules of the game were different, he would have won the popular vote. When the rules of the game change, so do (campaigning) strategies. He is VERY good at playing the game.
3.) Hillary getting a plurality of the popular vote isn’t that big of a deal, and history can prove it. It’s why there is such a thing as election run-offs. I don’t think anyone would want a system that awarded the win to someone who only receives a plurality of the popular vote. A similar system to the one I just described was in place in the Weimar Republic and allowed the Nazis to gain a foothold in the Reichstag.
4.) I argue that the EC protects minority groups. Since the beginning of time, people of similar backgrounds tend to come together geographically. The electoral college lets their voices be heard during the campaign season and on Election Day.
5.) Consider this—NYC has 8 million or so people. So does Nebraska, Iowa, Montana, and Idaho combined. NYC produces bankers (other things too obviously, I’m being a bit facetious). It has Wall Street and lots of financial districts that make money off money. That one city probably has no farms and very few, if any, manufacturing plants, factories, or military bases. Now let’s look at Iowa. It is the second most agriculturally productive state, and 100% of its output is used in states across the country, including byproducts that are sold to states like Montana and Idaho as feed. Montana has three heads of cattle per person (no, I don’t think cows should get to vote). Montana depends on Iowa to produce feed, and it makes up a huge share of the beef industry for the entire nation. Similarly, Nebraska produces more wheat than any other state, and over half of that wheat is used for non-human consumption. Idaho is the number one producer of potatoes, most which is used for human consumption across the nation. Without the electoral college, one city has more pull than all four of those states that are so critically important to the country’s economy and well-being. The Electoral College maintains that areas of the nation that produce SO much for the entire republic remain relevant during elections. Not only consumers deserve to have their voices heard.
