Richard thinks that we should not get rid of the Electoral College but make the popular vote just as important. Is that more feasible than completely changing electoral politics? And more importantly, is that cool?
“How cool is this? Compromise, don't destroy. Be constructive. Allow for a vote in big cities, as well as rural states to count on election day: 50% electoral college, 50% popular vote.”
Listen to Richard’s submission featured in Episode 71 of How Cool Is This? and read a transcript of the full episode below:
Richard: Downsize the Electoral College… but don't get rid of it. Senators from smaller states, including Democrats, will never agree to abolishing the Electoral College, but most people do think that the nationwide popular vote in the Presidential Election should count for something. Right now, the candidates don't campaign at all in places like New York, Boston, Chicago, or Boise. They're all in mostly red or blue states.
So how cool is this? Compromise, don't destroy. Be constructive, allow for a vote in big cities, as well as rural states to count on election day. 50% electoral college, 50% popular vote. That's my idea for reforming the electoral system.My name is Richard Davies, and I have a podcast, too. It's called How Do We Fix It? Thanks.
Leave us a voicemail @ 848-863-9917
to submit your idea to How Cool Is This?
Brian: Nick, how cool is Richard's idea to 50/50 it?
Nick: This is kind of cool. I've firmly been in the camp of just totally getting rid of the Electoral College for a while now, but Richard's idea does seem a lot more feasible. Coming up with some sort of cool compromise does seem like something that could actually happen.
Brian: I think when you put it like that, it sounds less cool to me. The idea of compromise sounds like the people who don't get what they want. When you call it a deal, that's like, “Ooh, we made a deal.”
Nick: A deal is a lot cooler than a compromise, but at the end of the day, more people get something rather than nothing. Do you think something like this would increase voter turnout, as much as just getting rid of the electoral college?
Brian: Not as much as our 67th episode, Tax Credits for Voting. This one seems more designed to have a better system of checks and balances. The current election system is designed for the late 1700s. It wasn't built to scale.
Nick: Our current election system was built on the foundation of “the regular people aren't informed enough to vote.” We've come a long way since then.
Brian: Although, I'm not sure that we have.
Nick: That's a fair point.
Brian: It's tough because it's easy to overlook a flawed system when your preferred political candidate wins an election. So, anytime anybody's advocating for a change, it's usually somebody… not feeling represented, and it's not going to be reciprocated by the party that's in power.
Nick: People only complain about the Electoral College when it doesn't benefit them. So, maybe setting up a system like Richard is suggesting might bring more people to the table.
Brian: Getting more people at the table is cool. It's a little frustrating that we all have to like, twist our arms and legs. And it's like, how do we do this when it's really quite simple?
Nick: When you say it's simple, you mean we should just count every vote as one vote and that's it?
Brian: But that's easy for me to say, living in New York, where I don't think that my vote really matters. And some people probably feel like their vote matters really, quite a bit. I don't know why they would want to give that up.
Nick: Maybe some people in states with smaller populations wouldn't want to get rid of the Electoral College because it's the only way they can feel like their voice is heard in a national election. And I, I get that.
Brian: If you eliminate the Electoral College, then small states really don't have any say in anything. The whole concept of statehood… are we really like forcing ourselves into that as well? I don't want to diminish anybody's identity, but if you get rid of the Electoral Cllege, you have to think - why do we even have this set up this way?
Nick: I guess there is a slippery slope argument that if we get rid of the Electoral College, what's the point of states. But I do think that mid-level of government in between the federal and the local still has an important role to play.
Brain: What would you call the combination, the fusion, of the popular vote and the Electoral College?
Nick: Maybe Richard would have a better chance of selling this idea through if he came up with a catchy name.
Brian: It’s a little bit of a mouthful right now, and maybe that's on us. Maybe we should just kind of keep going until we find something and then cut it together so that way it sounds like we got it immediately.
Brian: Popular state. No, that's not it.
Nick: The popular college? The electoral popular compromise?
Brian: What about, 50-50… 50 States, 50 something?
Nick: 50-50 is good. 50-50 vote.
Brian: Yeah. The 50-50 vote.
Nick: That's not bad. Richard, you can have that one.
Brian: Or come up with something better. That'd be cool. If you have any ideas or you came up with a perfect name for this call in. Our number's (848) 863-9917.
If you want to write and pass legislation that enacts The 50-50 Vote, feel free! Richard shared this idea so you can make it happen.
Check out Richard’s podcast and other work at howdowefixit.me.
We’re running daily episodes featuring your ideas about voting, democracy, and politics until the US presidential election is decided. To get your idea on the show, leave us a voicemail at (848) 863-9917.
Listen to a 5 minute episode of How Cool Is This? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere else you find podcasts.