Los Angeles County is bigger in population than at least 40 entire states. Not only does it have a huge population — more than 10 million and counting — but it is physically bigger than the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Probably physically larger than a few other states, too — like Rhode Island and Deleware.

This is because in California, they can (and do) keep making counties and cities bigger and bigger as the population swells. Other places have a thing called “city and county limits,” but California doesn’t. In California, there are no limits.

Because L.A. County is so big, many people declare that the Electoral College is a scam. This presumes that the only criteria for power ought to be population density. In a pure democracy, which the U.S. isn’t, that would theoretically be true.

In fact, almost no country is a pure democracy. In most parliamentary countries, you are not voting for individuals but a party platform so even though a very unpopular government can be brought down for a new election, who actually represents you? It’s up to the party. If we think party politics is totally nuts in this country, trust me, it’s wacko most other places too.

In the U.S., we believe in bigger is better. Take away the Electoral College and the largest, most densely populated areas would rule the country. Is that good or bad?

I suppose that depends on whether you agree with whoever wins and whether or not you believe they are going to address your local issues.

I understand people who live in big cities will definitely feel they get cheated by the electoral college because it’s intended as a field-leveling tool. It’s not democratic and it’s not supposed to be. But, in the U.S., our motto has always been “bigger is better.” Whether it’s businesses, cities, schools or whatever — we like’em big. More always wins while less doesn’t count.

The problem is, I think I should count too, no matter how big Los Angeles County becomes.

The electoral college is not a scam. It has been grossly mismanaged and misused, but the concept is sound. It has needed a massive, non-political overhaul for a very long time. As a result of gerrymandering and political chicanery, it may finally be obsolete, but that’s because we’ve turned it into yet one more political football. If we lost the electoral college, what will be the next political football? I’m sure we’ll find one.

If we want to retain the concept of being a “Constitutional Republic,” we need a better way to count votes. We also need more votes from more people in more places. We need a fully voting population of at least 50% because otherwise, how can we claim that most people are represented when most people don’t vote at all?

The point of having an Electoral College was to prevent Los Angeles, New York, and Texas from overwhelming Worcester County or for that matter, all of New England from Connecticut to Maine.

In a town like this where we don’t even have a bus or a taxi, how likely are we to have similar requirements to Los Angeles or New York or even Boston? I’m from New York and I love it, but this town has different needs. Large cities would barely consider Uxbridge worth noticing. Even in Massachusetts, Boston and its nearby suburbs get most of the attention — and the money. The rest of us in more rural areas — actually rural is most of the Commonwealth — we beg for scraps.

What if Boston itself becomes one of the scraps? Where do we fit in then?

If only big cities run everything, what happens to small towns? Will anyone notice we’re here? Would anyone care we’re here? I’m not sure anyone cares now, so are rural areas officially obsolete?

We don’t even make it into the weather reports.

Before everyone jumps on the “ban the Electoral College” bus, maybe you should wonder if the place you live would fit into a world where only big cities seem to have a say in what gets done.

Does the Electoral College need overhauling? Absolutely. But maybe not elimination. It isn’t a scam. It is, however, a major constitutional issue that urgently needs repairing. It was never supposed to be a political tool — for either party. Like so many other parts of our government, it is being used for purposes for which it was never intended. Kind of like the Senate and maybe, the Supreme Court. And the presidency.

Author: Marilyn Armstrong

Opinionated writer with hopes for a better future for all plus a big helping of cynicism.

24 thoughts on “RURAL LIFE AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE – Marilyn Armstrong”

  1. And therein lies the rub.., and why many people fail to vote. They feel their vote means nothing since, in spite of same, the EC will prevail in the end. I don’t see where there is a real solution to overhauling the EC, as 1. The GOP will find a way to end-run it nullifying any good purpose that may have been intended. In terms of population, our country was a much smaller place, and many of those states, mentioned, were territories. Thank goodness it is only effective for national elections where popular vote is, definitely, seriously needed. It doesn’t mean that, only, the big states will control national issues, but the majority of the nation’s population no matter where they are. You can’t tell folks where to live, but you can make their votes count.


    1. Make no mistake — the Dems have worked over the EC too. It has swung both ways over the years. Recently it has been the GOP, but in my mother’s lifetime, it was the FDR Democrats.

      But essentially, we need MORE voters everywhere to make this a meaningful and fair race and I don’t want to hear any more crap about how it “isn’t worth it.” If Trump hasn’t proved that it most assuredly it IS worth it, I give up. If we don’t vote, we are doomed.

      Moreover, had HC listened to her OWN people, she COULD have won. She made the lethal decision to not bother to go to any state she thought was “in the bag,” blowing the one and only rule of politics: ask voters to vote for you. That’s the bottom line. All the places she DIDN’T go? She lost. Had she given them a visit — and everyone warned her that she really needed to go there including Obama and Bill — the husband — and she refused to listen.

      Trump didn’t ONLY win. HILLARY lost.

      Worse, had more people voted and had she listened and been just a little less snooty and overly sure of who was going to vote for her, she could personally have averted this catastrophe.


      1. DITTO! you’ll get no argument from me. It’s a complex problem with no simple solution in sight.., save the “Scap the whole deal” one, which, in itself, may not be so simple? It just looks better than anything else at the moment.


        1. She was arrogant and, pardon the expression, magnificently uppity. And she got her comeuppance. Unfortunately, so did WE. She was warned. She didn’t listen. And I’m STILL PISSED ABOUT IT.


    1. Sean is right that it was originally created so the slave-owning states got to have as much clout as non-slave owning Northern states. Now I’m not entirely sure WHAT it is anymore.


  2. How about requiring the electors in each state to vote, as a group, proportional to the popular vote in their state, rather than winner takes all? If one candidates wins the state 60% to 40% and the state has 10 electoral votes, the candidate who got 60% of the popular vote gets 6 electoral votes, instead of all ten.


    1. I think if you did that and there were third or fourth party candidates most elections would wind up with no one getting s majority and the House of Representatives would chose the president. I think that would be good.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That is very parliamentarian and having lived in a parliamentary government, what this usually means is that no gets the win and everyone has to make deals with other candidates to form a majority. Which can get very ugly. If you think we make compromises, you should see what demeaning mess parliamentary governments go through to create a majority.


  3. In my opinion, if we went to elect the president by popular vote there would have to be a runoff between the top two candidates. We have tag here in Georgia for all our elected offices. I don’t think winning by a plurality of thirty-five or forty percent is a good system.

    The Senate is similar to the electoral college. Not democratic or fair.

    Changing our system would require a major overhaul of the constitution. The founders made amending the constitution extremely difficult. I don’t see any major changes in the way we run the country.

    I do think there will continue to be complaints and people wanting to change.


  4. While Sean Munger raises good points, he mistakes the key issue – yes, it WAS about leveling the playing field – regardless of topic.

    I’ve struggled with the issue of whether or not the EC is obsolete, having moved from suburban Wakefield, MA, to very urban Silicon Valley, CA, and have to agree with Marilyn that it’s still very relevant to otherwise marginalized voters.

    What really bothers me on this topic is that otherwise interesting and strong Candidates for 2020 also want to banish the electoral college. And no one has a string reason why, except to point to their dislike of the last election results and its orange toddler “winner”.

    While we no longer have an election system plagued by the limits of 1787 – wide distances to cross when tallying election results manually, which took weeks – we do have an electoral system largely limited to two overblown and bloated political parties who no longer appear to respond to the will of any the people.

    Just a reminder, Corporations and their interests are NOT people.

    Because so many people are disinterested in voting (less than 50% turnout and participation is a blow to the value of democracy), and because so many individuals concentrate on how to get voters to feel their vote doesn’t count (and that’s even before the current Russian hacking scandal), we’ve got folks advocation for sedition as a way to make progress.

    Last night’s speech by Individual No 1 left me ill, he had so many dog whistle words in his re-election campaign. “They” vs, “us”; “they tried to take away your dignity and your destiny, but we’ll never let them do that”; I’m still digesting all his rhetoric against his expressed wish to never leave office, and his Greg Stillman-like power to blind the people to his innate corruptness is nauseating.

    I don’t agree that taking away the electoral college is the answer, but I have zero ideas about what might work to unite the country against a rabble-rousing hate-monger. Certainly Biden and a bunch of geriatric has-beens aren’t working as any kind of answer to our incumbent demi-god’s challenges.

    Just color me worried, Marilyn. It serves no purpose, but that’s where I’ve lived for the last 3-4 years, and it’s not boding well for reasonable solution sourcing.


    1. I’m not seeing an answer either … not even the germ of an idea and that’s more than a little scary. I usually have some idea of something that might work, even if no one is ever going to do it. I’m not sure that our government is salvageable unless suddenly, most Americans decide they should vote and there’s someone worthy of their vote. I’m not overwhelmed by our potential candidates, but I think some of them have potential. I’m not a big Sanders fan, but I wasn’t last time around either. I’m very fond of Elizabeth Warren, but I don’t think she stands any chance of winning because she’s another one of those intelligent, collegiate northerners who the rest of the country love to hate.

      I don’t know what could work. Getting rid of PACs and getting corporate money out of politics — neither of which is going to happen because all the candidates are on the dole. Making the election cycle much shorter. New parties that really ARE different, more human and less corporate. But I don’t know.

      All I know for sure is that I hate what is going on and I feel betrayed.


  5. I can’t discuss the Electoral College but I understand the problem of the states that have megacities with big populations dominating the smaller ones because we have that here too. I guess most countries have that problem to some extent. It’s probably not as extreme here but it is an issue.


  6. Sorry Marilyn, but I can’t agree with this analysis. This is not really accurate, historically. The purpose of the electoral college as conceived in 1787 had very little to do with population density. It was created, one, to keep the selection of the President under the control of state legislatures (who appointed electors), and two, to artificially increase the influence of slaveholding states whose power was amplified by the 3/5ths Compromise. So yes, the Electoral College was a political football from the very beginning. Its purpose was to elect slaveowning Presidents, and it worked. Five of the first seven Presidents were slaveholders. Looking at the EC as an issue divorced from slavery is to miss the whole historical context behind it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Okay. I stand corrected. I actually forgot that a lot of it had to do with preserving the power of the south and its slaves. But it IS a leveling device and I don’t think it was ever supposed to be “democratic.” In fact, it’s pretty much anti-democratic in concept and in reality.

      I did not remember (probably because I haven’t been reading American history lately — I’ve been heavily into Medieval England recently) that the EC was a way to balance out the essential unfairness of the slave-owning south and the industrial north. It does give small population states at least a piece of the action, sort of like the Senate (okay, not THIS Senate but in theory the Senate) is supposed to do by giving each state TWO senators no matter what their population.

      And you are right. Because I really DO know that and the hangovers from slavery are clearly still alive and well in the U.S.A. Living as I do with a brown husband and a wild mix of ethnicities among cousins (we make up quite the diverse family group), I sometimes want very badly to forget that we are not the typical American family — though there really are a lot of us in the cities from DC through Boston … though not so much in rural places. In this town, I’m the ONLY Jew and Garry is the ONLY man of color. Not to mention he is the only person here who ever worked in TV (though we do have our own FBI agent).

      So you are right. But to be fair, I was trying to not make this as long as I can make these pieces. I know my limit for reading on my monitor tops out at about 1000 words. But you are absolutely right and I know better.


Talk to me!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.