SURENDRA PANDEY: Electoral College ensures voice of small states

Every four years after the election, people engage in debating merits of the Electoral College, especially when the losing candidate receives more popular votes. Although the Electoral College may be unique to the USA, the election of the leader by popular vote is rare around the world. In the parliamentary system of government, as it is in India, the largest democracy and my native country, the country does not vote directly for the prime minister. The delegates, or the members of the Parliament, are elected by individual constituencies. The leader of the party which has majority of MPs becomes the prime minister, although the PM has won just one constituency. Canada, Australia, the UK, Israel and several European and Asian countries have parliamentary systems of government.

In USA, the delegates are elected by their local communities to convey their choice of the president when the Electoral College meets. Although in a few states’ delegates are not bound by local vote, they rarely vote against the expressed wishes of their community. In many states, the delegates are bound by state law to cast the vote per state election result.

One may question the fairness of number of delegates allocated to each state. The U.S. was formed by the union of several colonies. In order to not marginalize smaller colonies, each state was allocated two senators, regardless of its population. California with over 38 million population has two senators, the same number as states like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota with less than 1 million population. To properly account for the population, the congressional districts are allocated based on the population of the state. This makes a balanced representation between population and states.

In the 2016 election, Clinton vs. Trump results in terms of popular vote, electoral vote and number of states (including D.C.) won, Trump leads in two out of three categories: popular vote, 48 percent-46 percent; electoral, 43 percent-57 percent; states, 41 percent-59 percent.

Furthermore, Clinton’s popular vote is due to only one state, California where she won by 4.27 million votes while nationally she is only 2.87 million votes ahead. One can conclude that California creates a serious unbalance if the popular vote count decides the winner. If California is taken out of the equation, Trump would win in all three categories: popular vote, electoral and number of states.

I believe that our founding fathers were visionaries who formed the union that cannot be easily broken, which may happen if smaller states are marginalized.

SURENDRA PANDEY

Albany