Electoral College System Good for Less Populated States

When the idea of One-Person-One-Vote is floated in place of the seemingly inefficient Electoral College system, many of us jump on that wagon. Many believe the whole Electoral College system of deciding presidential elections is out of date, flawed and should be abandoned. One state even passed legislation essentially stating if other states ignore the Electoral College system and determine votes solely by popular vote, they will as well. Somehow we think if every vote counted equally, we'd have more say and more power in elections. Would we?

Our founders were not intellectual incompetents. In fact, their democratic republic form of government was carefully crafted, sometimes prayerfully and often with much animated discussion, into the system that has stood the test of time and been replicated in one form or another around the world. The Electoral College is part of this carefully crafted system of government.

The function of the Electoral College in presidential elections is to make sure no one state overshadows another and the vote of every citizen, no matter where they live, counts. The Electoral College counterbalances what causes so much frustration for outstate Nebraska--the tendency of large population centers, Omaha and Lincoln, to call the shots in governmental decisions. Eliminating the Electoral College would put us closer to the Russian system of direct representation than what our founders so carefully crafted. It would add, not eliminate frustration for small population centers.

Think your vote doesn't count now? If the Electoral College was eliminated, the vote for president in less populous states would count for less, not more. If every vote counted equally, voters in places like New York and California would determine the outcome of every single presidential election. The vote from states like Nebraska wouldn't be needed at all. The Electoral College changes that equation, making sure every state has a say because we're actually voting for electors who cast the vote for president. (To find the total number of electors of each state, add the two senators to the number of representatives.)

Because of the Electoral College, a combination of smaller states can make a difference. "1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware)." -- How does the Electoral College work? http://people.howstuffworks.com/question472.htm.

One-Person-One-Vote and the elimination of the Electoral College may sound like a good idea, but in reality would strip less populous states of any say at all. Want to keep the presidential election by the people, of the people and for the people? Keep the Electoral College system.