To the editor:
I’d like to know when Craig Froehlich and other liberals are going to quit complaining about the 2000 election. It’s been almost three years now, yet the whining continues. And despite what vintners may tell you, this kind of whine does not improve with age.
Froehlich makes the point in his most recent article (“Polls Indicate: Americans Blame Iraq for Everything”, 19 June 2003) that President Bush did not win the popular vote but went to the White House anyway. This is interesting, perhaps, but completely irrelevant.
Football games are not decided by who amasses the most yards; they are decided by who scores the most points. Baseball games are not won by the team with the most hits, but by the team with the most runs. Similarly, winning the presidential election, by definition, requires a winning the Electoral College–not the popular vote.
In other words, the Presidency is determined by a vote of the states, not a vote of their individual citizens. However, populous states like California, New York, and Michigan get a much “bigger” vote than do small states like Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.
It is interesting to note that these larger states typically vote for the Democratic candidate. So I can understand why Democrats would be upset. If I had a candidate in an election that was already slanted in my favor and he lost anyway, I’d be a little ticked off too.
Without the Electoral College, though, candidates would have no reason to pay attention to smaller states. If all a candidate had to do to win the presidency was to win New York City, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Chicago, why would they pay any attention to places like New Hampshire or Iowa?
Or, for that matter, Utah?
Michael Scott MartinSenior, Chemistry Education