Abolishing the Electoral College Would Silence the Working Class
It seems that the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates aren’t the only ones supporting the elimination of the Electoral College. According to a poll by Politico,
50 percent of voters say the presidency should go to the winner of the
popular vote, with only 34 percent believing the current system should
remain in place.
Unsurprisingly, this issue is largely
split along partisan lines: 64 percent of Republicans favor the current
system, but 60 percent of Democrats want to see elections determined by
the popular vote.
The support for abolishing the
Electoral College is frightening, especially to those who live in areas
that would have virtually no representation under a pure popular vote.
Montana holds 3 of the total 538 electoral votes. This gives the state
0.51% of the electoral vote. Although this is a small, fairly
unimpactful number, it is bigger than the effect that the state would
have under a popular vote system. Only 0.32% of the U.S. population
resides in Montana.
It is often argued that this system is unfair
because the vote of a person in a small state matters more than the
vote of a person in a large state. It is true that a voter in Wyoming
has over three times
the impact in where the state’s electoral votes go than a California
voter does. Even though an individual has more impact within their
state, the state is still much less important to the overall election.
Without the Electoral College, rural
voices would be silenced. In America, all voices deserve to be heard.
Due to the differences in lifestyle throughout the country, we cannot
use a system that would eliminate the power of all small states.
Texas and Illinois are the only
states that are largely consumed with farm land, but still have a big
enough population to receive a high number of electoral votes. Besides
them, farming states tend to have smaller populations. In studies, it
has been shown that states with a higher percentage of working class
citizens are more likely
to vote Republican in presidential elections. More people involved in
farming, fishing, and forestry voted for Donald Trump than Hillary
Clinton in 2016. The majority
of farmers live in the Midwest, in areas that are less populous. If
these working class voices were not represented by the Electoral
College, Donald Trump would have likely not been elected president.
Due to lifestyle differences, it
makes sense that voting patterns would be different between classes.
Without the Electoral College, people in professions that are more
common to rural areas would have no power in who is elected president.
As stated, small states would have practically no effect on the outcome
of the presidential election. Candidates would have no reason to make
campaign stops anywhere that is not a major city, because urban areas
hold 82 percent of the U.S. population.
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to maintain our Republic and protect
the power and sovereignty of small states within the country. Without
it, the only voices that will be heard are those in large cities. Rural
ideas will not be represented in presidential elections, and our country
will be controlled by “mob rule.”
The Electoral College was put in
place for a reason. As American citizens, it is our responsibility to be
informed of the importance of this system. If we remain ignorant and
abolish the Electoral College, we will lose a major piece of freedom in
our country.
The HiV of Western Culture
4 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment