It’s time for a new way to elect a president


Hiding beneath the scandals, lies, ego, and deplorable nastiness of this election lay actual issues. If we tune out the noise and focus on the main issues of this election, our choice becomes clear depending on political leanings.  Otherwise, it is a matter of whom you hate less.

For me it is simple.  I support the notion of stronger immigration policy, rebuilding our military, fixing the tax code, and a non-liberal Supreme Court nominee.  Most importantly, I do not subscribe to the redistribution of wealth as a way to drive a nation forward.  I do not believe you raise the bottom up by bringing the top down.

It is clear for me, in theory, to vote for Donald Trump.  I may have to invest in a gas mask but I do believe of the two losers, he has the most upside to grow in the position.  President Obama never grew so there is a chance I’m wrong but I know exactly what we’ll get with a Hillary Clinton presidency. I want more for my children.

But this election has created other issues that concern me.  Are you tired of hearing about swing states?  I know I am and I hope congress addresses the issue before the next presidential election.  Did you know when you vote in a presidential election your vote does not count towards the person you choose?

Every vote actually does count but you are actually voting for your candidate’s elector.  The Electoral College was a compromise our Founding Fathers forged to avoid a popularity contest in place of a presidential election.  They also did not want to cut smaller states out of the process.

Each of our 435 congressional districts represents approximately 710,000 citizens. Each district has an elector and the state gets an electoral vote for each of its state senators. For example, New Jersey has 12 congressional districts with two senators so it accounts for 14 electoral votes.

In most states, the popular vote winner in that state gets all of the state’s electoral votes. The only two exceptions are Nebraska and Maine that apportion their Electoral College votes. In other words, an electoral vote goes to the candidate who gets the most votes in a particular congressional district.  The two Senators electoral vote goes to the winner of the state’s popular vote.

To me, that is a more fair method of electing a president.

By following the apportion method, each district would be fairly represented.  For example, there are four predominantly Republican districts in New Jersey.  However, NJ is a cesspool of Liberalism and all 14 electoral votes goes to the Democratic nominee.  Under the apportion method three votes would go to the Republican nominee and 11 to the Democrat.  I think this more fairly represents the will of the people.

An ancillary benefit is the swing states go away and all voters matter.

Mitt Romney won 78 percent of all counties in 2012.  That means President Obama only carried 22 percent of all counties in America.  They just happened to be the most populous counties. President Obama won 26 states but Romney had a plurality of votes in 99 of the congressional districts.  In a sense, those 99 districts should not have even bothered to vote because their voices went unheard.  Likewise, in the 24 states Romney won, President Obama won 32 congressional districts. The same holds true for those 32 districts.

If we followed the apportion method in 2000, Al Gore would have received 269 electoral votes, George W. Bush would have received 263 and Ralph Nader would have received six.  In this case, a vote of state delegations in the House of Representatives would have settled the issue not the Supreme Court.

I hope this election proves the will of the people is stronger than the selection of the elite.  To ensure this remains the case, I think we need to move to an apportion method for all states.

About Armando Diana

A freelance writer for more than 30 years I covered the political scene in New Jersey which can prepare anyone for national politics. I have no fancy political degrees and I'm definitely not a lawyer - I am a common person who is fed up with politics. I want leaders focused on doing what is right for the country, not for them.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to It’s time for a new way to elect a president

  1. w1nt3l says:

    I really like this idea as it solves two problems I’ve seen written about. The first problem is that the Electoral College isn’t “fair” in a modern society. It might have worked great 200+ years ago, but it hasn’t changed or adapted. The second problem is the idea that votes, as you described, don’t always count unless the EV’s are apportioned based closer to the states popular vote. I think more people would actually get out and vote if they knew that their voices were being heard and made a difference. I’ve been a strong opponent to the Electoral College and am still surprised that more people don’t understand how the system actually works despite some really good (and easy to find) information being available.

  2. Pingback: When so desperate to hold onto power | Marcus Ampe's Space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s