You have probably seen this map.

For those who do not know, this a map of every county in the United States and how they voted in the 2012 Presidential Election. The red portions are for Republican Mitt Romney, and the blue are for Democrat Barack Obama. We do not have a very good map to reflect the 2016 election, but it will look very similar to the one above. When presented with this map, the initial reaction is to think that most of the United States voted for Mitt Romney. Unless you live under rock, we all know Barack Obama won the 2012 Presidential Election. The incumbent beat Romney in the popular vote 51.1% to 47.2%, a margin of five million votes. Obama also handily won the Electoral College vote 332 to 206. President Obama even carried all of the electoral votes from Nevada, Oregon, and Washington even if this map looks like all those states went strong for Romney. 

The fact is that the county election map is useless. Many pundits will use this visual as an argument for America being a center right country. In 2004, the county election map was used by strategists in the George W Bush administration to show the media that the newly reelected President had a mandate from most of America. Never mind that Bush won with just over 50% of the popular vote, the county map showed over two thirds of the nation was all in on the President. The county election map is nothing but a propaganda tool to try and fool the masses. It works every single time.

How do we break the spell of the county electoral map? Here is another way to look at the popular vote map from the 2012 election.

This map comes from University Michigan professor Mark Newman. The map distorts the states to show how valuable they are based on the population. Yes it does only show the states as a whole and not broken down into counties. If we could distort the map to show the population numbers of the counties, most of the red at the top map would completely disappear. The blue area would be way more dominant, and even look as big in red states like Arizona. Compared to the traditional ways we are presented with an electoral map in Presidential elections, Professor Newman actually has the one that comes closest to truly reflecting the support Barack Obama had in his reelection bid. That is the map the media should be using.

The recent election of Donald Trump has upset a lot of people. The opposition to Trump points out that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and therefore a larger portion of Americans would prefer her as President. The supporters of Trump point to the non-disputed fact that their candidate won over the requisite amount of states to put Trump over the 270 needed Electoral College votes. Both sides are correct, but the rules state that the winner of the Electoral College gets to be President. That winner is Donald J Trump. That is not up for debate.

Similar to our recent situation, the 2000 election between Bush and Democrat Al Gore ended with the Electoral College loser having the most popular votes. After the election, Democrats were claiming that the Electoral College should be eliminated. Nothing ever happened, the Democrats gave up pretty quick. Now for the second time in five elections, the Democratic candidate gained more popular votes, and lost the Presidency. Renewed cries to eliminate the Electoral College have started. California Senator Barbara Boxer has floated the idea of putting forth legislation to do away with the system. Why should people care this time, if the Democratic Party gave up the fight 16 years ago?

What is the purpose Electoral College?

To understand why the Electoral College should be eliminated, we need to know why it exists. Vox.com writer Sean Illing says it was created to protect slave states, and he is probably right. Founding Father, and current Broadway darling, Alexander Hamilton said we need the electoral college so “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”(Federalist #68). James Madison was afraid that a dangerous, passionate, faction could elect a bad person. Has the Electoral College stopped any of these things from happening? The idea the founders were trying to put forward is that the President of the United States needed to be an honorable, qualified, and politically professional person. The President should not be elected by current whims of an angry population.

The true nature of the Electoral College does not exist today. The founders intent has been lost because all states, except Maine and Nebraska, allocate all their electors to whoever wins a plurality of the vote. Twenty six states, and the District of Columbia, make it against the law for the electors to vote against the will of the plurality. The Electoral College has been altered so much, that it does not even act as intended. That alone should call for its dismissal.

In our current political climate. many people defend the Electoral College as a method that allow all American interests to be represented. The single rural farmer should have as much say as the large concentration of similar thinking urban dwellers. Without the Electoral College, the Presidential candidates would only focus on the big cities. These are the people who use the county electoral map as a true snapshot of America. Unfortunately these ideas are incredible wrong and dangerously naive.

The Electoral College is a system set up to fail it's true intent. In fact, it has failed the country four times, twice in the last sixteen years. The uneven representation of small states has thwarted the progress of the United States since the founding. Slavery went on because of this uneven representation. States wage economic warfare on each other because blue states like New York and California pay for the economic disasters in Kansas and Louisiana. Places like Puerto Rico have a 0% chance to be admitted as a state because Republicans fear it would give the Democrats more representation, and more electoral votes. The Electoral College system rewards small state fear, and incompetence. Does that represent a bright shining city on a hill? The real failure of the Electoral College lies in the idea of population disbursement.

As directed by the US Constitution, each state gets an Electoral College vote for each member of Congress. Every state has two Senators, and then any number of Representatives based on population. The highest number of Electoral College votes currently is California with fifty-five, the lowest electoral votes is three shared by a number of states plus the District of Columbia. Right now, a Presidential candidate could win the requisite 270 votes with just 11 states, leaving almost 80% of the states without any real representation in the White House. But what if we had a large concentration of the population in only one state? Would the rural folks have any hope?

The Super State Experiment

Lets do a little experiment where we take the Electoral College to its terrifying final form. In order to make this experiment easy, we have assumed the US voting population is close to the same as the current actual population (approximately 300 million). New laws were passed to allocate votes based on the voting population, not the total. In order to win the electoral vote, a candidate still needs 270 votes. And last, poor Washington DC will be left out, their three votes gets absorbed into the experiment's ether. We will tax the good people of DC, but you still get no representation.

To see how the Electoral College is a farce, we need to imagine a Super State. This Super State would have over 99% of the United States population. Let's imagine that a wonderful thing was discovered in this state, and every American citizen would have to move there for economic survival. Because we are creatures of habit, the United States keeps the other forty-nine states. We do not want to change the flag. The other non-Super States would keep three people living in their borders, a Representative and two Senators. And then let's say that the Electoral map looked like this after the election.

Beautiful blue Missouri has 391 Electoral Votes, more than enough to elect the President. Who in their right mind would argue that the winner of the Super State should not be President? Yet people still argue that this map is valid:

The blue portions on the county map account for over 50% of the current US population. Not like Super Missouri, but more than enough to gauge the will of the American voter. The county map is filled with false ideals. For example, a candidate can win the state of Ohio by taking just eight of its eighty eight counties. Why are there no thought pieces about the under representation of the other eighty counties? Because it would be ridiculous. 

Lets look at how big the Super State of Missouri has to be so it does not control every election. If the other 49 states have six electoral votes each, then Super Missouri would have a paltry 244 votes. Having six electoral votes means that each small state would account for 9% of the population of the country. Our mythical 49 states with six electoral votes would then in total make up 46% of the population. Super Missouri would have 54% of the population, and their unanimous voice could not elect the President. A true tyranny of the minority.

Here is where the Electoral College really shows its failings. It is not logical to think that every single person in Super Missouri would vote for one candidate. It is conceivable to think that the Presidential candidates would only campaign in the Super State and try to sway a majority of its dense population.. If Missouri holds 99% of population, then it is a race to the plurality, but what if Super Missouri was just barely big enough to sway any election? 

For this to happen, the other 49 states need to have five electoral votes each. That means the states that are not Super Missouri would have approximately two million residents each. Collectively, the non-super 49 would be just under one third of the population. That means in a two party race, a Presidential candidate could win the election by taking just over half of Super Missouri. In every election, the President-elect would only need one third of the nation to vote for them. In a race with multiple fringe party candidates, the victor would need much less than one third of Americans supporting their candidacy. With 100% voter turnout, less than one in every three voters would determine who would lead the nation for four years. The Electoral College deems this fair. 

What Damage has the Electoral College Done?

Every four years people defend the Electoral College as a system that stops the majority from imposing it's will on the entire country. The demagogues come from the political fringes, the philosophical minority. The majority has to be more centered to attract more voters. By embracing the Electoral College, we enable the growth of fringe movements. The modern political campaigns are not contested in big states like New York, California, Illinois, and Texas. Theses states are some of the biggest economic powers on the planet, and they have little influence in who the President will be. States like Ohio and North Carolina have a deeply divided electorate. They get the lions share of attention in a political campaign. In fact, both the Clinton and Trump campaigns spent almost 90% of their time in just four states at the end of the 2016 election. In an era where the Republican party will run 147 people for President, an unqualified wanna be despot can take the largest minority of votes in a primary and become the de facto choice A or B in the Presidential election. Once that person gets to the final round, they only need to get the right number of states, and not the will of the people, to be the President of the United States. The Electoral College defends the will of a partisan minority over the wishes of a balanced majority.

The Electoral College was an idea born of fear and inhumanity. It is a system being propped up by a political minority who will die without it. The defenders of the system claim it is more representative of the nation as a whole, and they are wrong. A modern America has been held back because of this terrible 18th century idea. It is time to understand the true failures of how we elect the President of the United States. It is doubtful that any real action will happen in our lifetimes, but with our little experiment, maybe more people will become enlightened. America has discarded other bad ideas from her past, maybe the Electoral College will be the next one to join the ash heap of history. We can only hope for that change.

Thanks to outsidethebeltway.com for their maps and crazy awesome knowledge.

RD

RD Kulik is the Head Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Are you one of the five people who live in a three Electoral Vote state? Tell us why you need unequal representation by writing for SeedSing. 

SeedSing is funded by a group of awesome people. Join them by donating to SeedSing