With the election of the second minority president of this century, both Republican and both manifestly unqualified for the job, the debate has heated up over the Electoral College.
The battle lines are drawn roughly as follows:
Conservatives want to retain it, preventing the coastal, largely Democratic population centers from overwhelming more rural states.
Liberals look to eliminate it, ending sparsely peopled acreage, mostly in the plains and mountains, exerting disproportionate influence.
Is there a way to resolve that problem, maintaining the Founders’ intent, while at the same time making the votes of persons more important than those of empty land? I believe there is.
For example, Nebraska, with 0.6 percent of the nation’s population, currently casts 1.1 percent of electoral votes. This asymmetry repeats itself across the country, the vote of a person in a “small” state more heavily weighted.
Compare to Texas, which has 8.8 percent of the country’s people and casts a mere 7 percent of electoral votes. The difference in value between a Nebraskan’s and a Texan’s vote for president is striking.
If we were to reduce each state’s electors by one – number of representatives in Congress plus one senator – Nebraska, a typical “small” state, will have its electoral influence reduced to 0.8 percent while Texas’s will rise to a more equitable 7.6 percent. I offer this as a compromise worthy of Henry Clay, addressing a grave injustice and with just enough in it to displease all parties.
WILLIAM POLITT
Weare