Defending the Electoral College since 2009
The Electoral College is sometimes derided as unfair, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. The allocation of electoral votes is based on the census and is equal to a state’s number of representatives and senators in Congress. For example, California gets 55 electoral votes while Wyoming gets 3. The beauty of this system is that it gives an advantage to larger states while still allowing smaller states to have a voice in electing our chief executive. What could be fairer than that?
Less populated states like Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Missouri, produce food and energy for the country. While they have smaller populations, those people and their states still matter. Under a national popular vote system, the people in those states could effectively be disenfranchised. Presidential candidates would ignore them in favor of densely populated urban areas and giant media markets, which also tend to be in the biggest states, like California and New York.
Our well-crafted federal electoral system gives small states a reason to remain in the union. Turning them into glorified vassal states goes against the Founder's vision of America as a federation of states and could eventually lead to secession.
Instead of taking cheap shots, critics should reconsider and appreciate the careful balance created by our Constitution. The Electoral College is many things, but unfair isn’t one of them.
Time is running out
There is a real, immediate threat to the constitutional way we elect our president. National Popular Vote is 76% of the way to implementing their dangerous plan.