Why We Need Presidential Electors
by john harrison
Every four years some people express surprise to find out that they live in a republic rather than a democracy. This year as in in several other presidential elections they express surprise that it is not only possible but happens fairly often that a candidate for president will win the popular vote but still lose the election.
It was designed that way on purpose. If we did not have such a system; if it was a straight question of majority rule; then, a candidate might only campaign in California, Texas, Florida and New York since those four states alone comprise over one third of the total population of the United States, and they vote. You would never see such a candidate in North Carolina, Virginia or any state where the election was close because already about half of the votes in such a state are in effect already “taken”. They would only go to states where they had a huge base because that is only place they could go that would make a difference in the success or failure of their campaign.
Simply stated, that would be bad for our democratic republic. In fact, her failure to satisfactorily confront her problems was at least part of Sec. Clinton’s problem in the last campaign. Our current system requires candidates to go to exactly to the places in the country where the real issues of that campaign are being fought out. That is why they are called “battleground ” states. These states change fairly regularly as new states, like Michigan, come into play.
Finally, the people in the small states are not dumb. They know the only reason the candidates ever stop by during a campaign is because of their electoral votes. Any change would require them to agree to give that up. Not likely.