Electoral anachronism

The tight presidential race between President Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney has inspired all sorts of speculation. Among this is the possibility that the next president could win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote.

That is what happened in 2000 with George W. Bush’s election. The fact that today, there is the possibility of a repeat, reflects anachronism in a country that might otherwise set an example of democracy.

The Electoral College is an institution dating back to another century. It comes from the time of the Founding Fathers, when the wisdom of the popular vote was distrusted and an indirect election of representatives from each state was chosen. Every delegation has a number of representatives equal to that of its federal legislators, and they are in charge of appointing the president.

This system was also created to grant more power to smaller states. More than two centuries later, thanks to demographic changes, the power of these states has grown in such a disproportionate way that it is detrimental to the basic principle of “one person, one vote.”

Political systems have evolved with the times, changing wins by the “first minorities” (like in Mexico) to systems with second rounds, and indirect elections to direct ones. Except in the United States.

In our country, making a change of this type would not be easy. It requires a constitutional amendment with a two-thirds majority in Congress and approval from three-fourths of the legislatures. The states that benefit from the current system and get disproportionate attention from presidential campaigns won’t accept this change. However, there are eight states (totaling 132 electoral votes), including California, with laws that give all the votes to the person who wins the popular vote.

The winner of the election will be the candidate who gets at least 270 electoral votes. For the good of our democracy, we hope he is the same one who obtains the majority of the votes.