Let’s be honest — it doesn’t matter. Your vote in the presidential election doesn’t matter.
At least if you are a Republican in Washington (or Oregon, or California). At least if you are a Democrat in Idaho (or Alabama, or Arkansas). In those and many other states, the outcome is inviolate.
Even if the outrageously absurd were to occur — like a party nominating a bigoted narcissist who mocks everybody up to and including POWs, or a party nominating a candidate who has a passing acquaintanceship with the truth but an intimate knowledge of private e-mail servers — most states are solidly locked into the red or blue category. Good thing that could never happen, right?
Anyway, Washington is one of those states. In 2012, Barack Obama garnered 56 percent of the vote here compared with 41 percent for Mitt Romney, and that gave Democrats a seven-election winning streak in this bluest of blue states. Why, Washington is so blue that the smurf should be the state animal. Well, maybe not. But the point is that we know which way this state is going to lean on Election Day.
Understandably, this leads to some frustration on the part of the minority party. Because with a victory in Washington, Hillary Clinton will garner all 12 of the state’s electoral votes. Not seven or nine or 10. She will receive all 12, leaving Republican voters in the state with nada to show for their efforts. In California, Clinton will reap all 55 electoral votes — more than 20 percent of the total necessary to secure the presidency.
Why? Because that’s just how it is done. A total of 48 states plus the District of Columbia award all their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in the state (Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by Congressional district).
This has led to some consternation over the years. Like in 2000, which was a banner year for consternation, with Al Gore winning the popular vote but George Bush winning the presidency by a hanging chad or two. And it has led to much discussion about the anachronism that is the Electoral College, complete with suggestions that the presidency should be decided by the national popular vote.
There is some validity to this argument, just as there is some validity to maintaining the traditional manner for electing a president. And you can find many, many eloquent arguments on both sides of the issue.
The system works, kind of
Yet we come here today to praise the Electoral College, not to bury it. Because one of the rarely mentioned benefits of the Electoral College is that it preserves the two-party system.
You see, because a party must win a majority — or at least a plurality — in a state to garner any electoral votes, that forces the parties to appeal to a wide swath of the populace. When a Bernie Sanders ignites a political revolution that inspires large numbers of voters, it causes Democrats to fold some of his ideas into their campaign pitch. The system reinforces the notion of the major parties as big tents with lots of room for outsiders while preventing third or fourth or fifth parties from establishing a foothold.
Many people don’t view the political parties in such a positive fashion; this is understandable.
But in the long run, the system is preferable to having several small parties emerge and having a president elected with, say, 25 percent of the popular vote. The Electoral College inevitably produces a clear winner in the presidential race — like when Bill Clinton received 43 percent of the popular vote but 69 percent of the electoral vote. That, it could be suggested, is good for the stability of the union.
Such a view has long has been an argument in favor of the Electoral College. And yet this election just might be enough to scuttle it.
Because if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the best the two major parties could come up with, then maybe it is time to rethink the entire system.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
