Popular Vote: Why You Might Not Matter
When it comes to the popular vote and the "one man, one vote" movement, at first glance it seems to be common sense. Most people support it because they don't take a second look at the Electoral College. Maybe we should take a second look, but from both sides?
Imagine a day where the Electoral College is gone, and the popular vote is the method for presidential election. There is a horrible storm that day passing through the Midwest, and many people are without power; streets are flooded, and voters cannot get to their polling location. Millions of Americans are unable to cast their vote, and the President is elected.
Imagine that those Midwest states would have had a majority voting for the other candidate. They would then go the next 4 years without having the chance to choose the President. Instead, they are living under a President for whom they did not vote for, or against. Those unable to vote, in a sense, do not matter.
"Worst Case Scenario" pictured here (which has happened multiple times.)
Now, imagine a system in which each electoral vote is distributed by Congressional District, and the two Non-Congressional votes are distributed to the winner of the state popular vote. This is already the standard of voting for Nebraska and Maine. It may soon be a reality in Pennsylvania as well.
Imagine again, that in the Midwest, horrible floods prevent 75% of a few states from voting. Instead, only a small amount of people from those states can vote. Rather than losing millions of votes, the electoral votes from the state are constant, essentially giving them a say without being required to vote when voting is nearly impossible.
The downside to a popular vote? Only those who happen to vote are represented. In a reformed Electoral College, EVERYONE is represented equally, even those unable to vote.
While I believe the Electoral College should be reformed, I do not believe it should be abolished completely. If elected by congressional district, everyone has equal representation.