|
|
|
HOME
ELECTION RESULTS
MUCH MORE |
|
||
|
I hope that this section will be one of the most popular features at President Elect with people of all viewpoints sharing their insights. I'm in the process of updating all the election results so until I finish that and we start getting submissions, this section may be slow growing. Until then, here's one of my favorite arguments in favor of the electoral college.
If you would like to submit an article for inclusion in the electoral college debate,
please see our submission guidelines. The electoral college system of electing the president is the source of much debate. Most people say it's anachronistic, confusing, unfair, and that nothing else in the world uses anything this crazy. The most common alternative is direct election. Personally, I beleive this to be dangerous, for reasons I'll explain in a later article. For now I'd like to try to illustrate that the theory behind the electoral college's setup is not unique, and in other situations, perfectly accepted. As much as I'd like to take credit for this, it comes from an article called "Math Against Tyranny" by Will Hively, and based on research by Alan Natapoff. In the seven games of the 1960 World Series, the New York Yankees outscored the Pittsburgh Pirates 55-27. But the Yankees lost the series 4 games to 3. Was this fair? Is it confusing? No, because we all know that points have to be grouped in a way that wins games. The Yankees won 3 games by 10 or more points, but lost the other four by a close score. In this same vein, votes need to be grouped in ways that win states. According to Natapoff, "that's exactly how [Grover] Cleveland lost the series of 1888. He lost the five largest states by a close margin, though he carried Texas, which was a thinly populated state then, by a large margin. So he scored more runs, but he lost the five biggies." Hively believes, "that was fair, too. In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the 1960 Yankees. A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available - bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field - and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers. A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters." Natapoff concludes,"Experts, scholars, deep thinkers could make errors on electoral reform, but nine-year-olds could explain to a Martian why the Yankees lost in 1960, and why it was right. And both have the same underlying abstract principle." |
|||
|
original content and graphics unless otherwise noted © 1999-2000 James R Whitson  President Elect is part of WhitsonWeb |
|||
