Winner Takes All: Voters Get Taken

To The Editor:
Every presidential election stirs up talk of using the national popular vote instead of the Electoral College to decide who the next president will be.
As most folks know, we don’t vote directly for the president, rather for electors who later go to Washington and cast votes for the candidates. Each state is assigned a number of electoral votes (thus electors) tied to the number of congressional representatives they have plus two for the senators. Even the states having small populations get at least three electoral votes. This was thought to give low-population states more clout in the voting. The reality, though, is the states with the fewest electoral votes tend to be ignored in favor of the so-called battleground states with large numbers of electoral votes (Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan etc.). States having solid large pluralities for one party or other e.g., GOP or Red states and Democratic or Blue states are often ignored by campaigns because the electoral outcome in those states is preordained. Thus the outcome of the election boils down to just a handful of key states.
This last election we were told the linchpin state was Ohio. But it can be any populous battleground state that could tip the outcome. One big objection to this system is that a candidate could win the election by amassing the required 270 minimum electoral votes while actually losing the popular vote. My big objection is the system allows millions of voters not to have their vote count at all. How? If you live in a solidly Blue state and vote for the GOP candidate your vote never has impact beyond your state’s borders. If you live in a solidly Red state and vote for the Democratic candidate, likewise. All the electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state, which in this example, can mean the one you did not vote for. Thus your vote is for naught.
The situation is different in the battleground states where the outcome could go either way thus your vote is very important. Even there, the state-wide popular vote ultimately determines to whom all the electoral votes go. This method is known as “winner-takes-all.” All but two states (Maine and Nebraska) use it. They use a system of apportionment. For example: Electoral votes are granted according to the vote plurality in each congressional district. The two electoral votes for the senate are determined by the vote plurality for the entire state. Thus using the state-wide plurality to determine which candidate gets all electors is avoided. This seems to me a much fairer system and one in which one’s vote has more impact. Most states have congressional districts which might be labeled Red or Blue thus the apportionment system is a truer reflection of the will of the voters in that state. Campaigns likely prefer the winner-takes-all system.
It’s a lot easier and less costly when all campaigns need to do is focus on a handful of key states, knowing the rest are either locked up for their party or solidly in the opposition camp and untouchable. Except for a really tight electoral race, the smaller states are of little consequence. To go to an apportionment method only needs the consent of a state’s legislature. It does not require an amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote likely does. Either way it’s an uphill battle. I suspect the national parties would fight either change tooth and nail. There would probably be huge partisan squabbles in the state legislatures who have to approve either change. It could be done, but unlikely in the foreseeable future. When I hear all the whining about voter ID laws and how they could disenfranchise some minority voters (if you believe it does,) I wonder why no one complains about the millions of disenfranchised voters who get zapped by the winner-takes-all Electoral College system. This makes the voter ID issue pale by comparison. It’s the “800-pound gorilla in the room” going unnoticed cycle after cycle and one of the greatest travesties of our electoral system.
ROBERT LOVELL
Court House