Should the United States Get Rid of the Electoral College? >
National Popular Vote Isn't About Red States and Blue States
Candidates should worry about all 50 states, not just nine
November 5, 2012
About Christopher Pearson:
Christopher Pearson is a member of the Vermont legislature representing part of Burlington. Vermont is one of nine states that have already passed the National Popular Vote bill.
The first election I was old enough to vote in was in 1992, the year Bill Clinton was elected. I remember thinking it was strange that Ross Perot earned 19 percent of the vote but didn't get anything in the Electoral College. Then there was the 2000 election, one of four U.S. presidential elections where the second place candidate became president.
In 2004 and 2008 the Electoral College delivered the popular vote winner but very few states were up for grabs. Most Americans sat on the sidelines watching the debate happen in one of the eight to 12 "battleground" states. And we did come close to a backfire. In 2004 we were 60,000 Ohio voters away from another second place winner—this time Sen. John Kerry.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]
The 2012 election has been the worst one yet, with four out of five voters being ignored by candidates seeking the presidency. Twelve of the 13 smallest states are on the sideline. Here in Vermont, if you want to participate in the presidential election, you drive to New Hampshire.
People think the Electoral College helps small states but it doesn't. We are treated just like people living in the big, non-battleground states like New York, California, or Texas.
In the United States of America every vote should matter. And every vote should be equal. Both values are inherent in our understanding of citizenship. If we have a popular vote the contest will empower the grassroots. Which is a good thing in an era with enormous amounts of money flowing into elections.
A popular vote for president isn't about small states or big states, red states or blue states. It's about every vote counting and counting equally. And it's about every state playing a meaningful role in the election of our president.
[See photos from the 2012 Presidential Campaign Trail.]
National Popular Vote is a state-based solution consistent with the Founders' vision. The states must choose to enact the National Popular Vote bill, and they are. National Popular Vote has already passed in half the states needed for the agreement to take effect.
Lets make 2012 the last election where candidates worry about nine states instead of 50. Tell your state legislator to pass the national popular vote bill next year.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#122359
Yes — Eliminating the Electoral College would make every American's vote count regardless of where they live
BARRY FADEM, President of National Popular Vote
-
#312569
Yes — The Electoral Colleges gives advantages to Democratic states with higher populations of noncitizens
PAT L. GAROFALO, Republican State Representative from Minnesota
-
#482151
No — The Electoral College protects checks and balances in the American political system
LARA BROWN, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Villanova University
-
#549140
No — The Electoral College is the democratic and constitutional way to elect the president
TRENT ENGLAND, Vice President of Policy at the Freedom Foundation.
-
#667174
No — History shows pure democracies implode, the Electoral College guards against majority tyranny
TARA ROSS, Author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College
Reader Comments (