The Electoral College: A Satirical Look at America’s Favorite (and Only) Way of Choosing a President

The Electoral College: A Satirical Look at America’s Favorite (and Only) Way of Choosing a President

Once every four years, Americans come together to participate in one of the most important exercises of democracy: electing the president. And how do we do it? Through the Electoral College, a system that has been in place since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago.

But what is the Electoral College, exactly? Well, let me explain it to you like I’m explaining it to a five-year-old:

“Okay kiddo, so imagine you’re playing with your friends and you want to decide what game to play next. You all get together and vote on which game you want to play. But instead of just counting up all the votes and picking the game that got the most votes, we’re going to make things complicated. Each friend gets a certain number of points based on where they live or how many toys they have or something like that. Then we’ll add up all those points and whoever has the most points gets to pick which game we play.”

Sounds kind of silly when you put it that way, doesn’t it? But believe it or not, that’s pretty much how our presidential elections work.

In case you need a slightly more grown-up explanation: The United States is divided into 50 states (plus Washington D.C.), each with its own set number of “electors” who are responsible for casting their state’s official vote for president. Those electors are chosen by political parties before each election and typically pledge their allegiance to one particular candidate (though there have been instances where “faithless electors” have gone rogue).

The number of electors each state gets is determined by its population size (more people = more electors), but even tiny states like Wyoming get at least three electoral votes. There are currently 538 total electoral votes up for grabs in any given presidential election, so the magic number a candidate needs to win is 270.

Now, you might be thinking: “Wait a minute. Why don’t we just count up all the actual votes that people cast and whoever gets the most votes wins?” And honestly, that’s a great question. The answer has to do with how our founding fathers set up our government way back when.

Back in those days, there was a lot of debate about how much power individual states should have versus how much power the federal government (i.e. Washington D.C.) should have. Some people wanted each state to be its own little country with its own laws and rules, while others wanted more centralized control from D.C.

The compromise they came up with was this: Each state would get equal representation in one half of Congress (the Senate), regardless of population size. But in the other half (the House of Representatives), representation would be based on population size.

So why not use that same system for electing presidents? Well, because then candidates would only really need to campaign in big cities or heavily populated areas where they could rack up lots of votes. Smaller states wouldn’t matter as much since their populations are comparatively tiny.

To make sure every state had some say in who became president, they decided to give each state at least three electoral votes (since even tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware still technically count as “states”), regardless of population size. That means Wyoming gets three electoral votes despite having fewer residents than Brooklyn – but hey, at least they’re not completely left out!

Of course, things have changed quite a bit since 1787 when the Electoral College was first established. For one thing, we no longer rely on horses and buggies to travel across the country – which means candidates can easily visit smaller towns and rural areas without too much trouble.

Also, there’s been some controversy over whether or not this system is actually fair. For example, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote (i.e. more people voted for her than for Donald Trump), but Trump still won the election because he had more electoral votes.

Some people argue that this means the Electoral College is outdated and needs to be abolished. Others say it’s an important part of our democracy and should be preserved.

But here’s a radical idea: What if we kept the Electoral College…but made it even more complicated?

Think about it – why stop at just giving each state a certain number of electoral votes based on population size? Why not also factor in things like education levels or average income or how many trees are in each state?

Sure, this would make things even messier than they already are. But think of all the fun new strategies candidates could come up with! Instead of just trying to win over swing states like Ohio and Florida, they’d have to figure out how to appeal to voters in places like Montana (which has fewer residents than Brooklyn) or Vermont (which has way more cows than people).

Plus, can you imagine how much weirder those election night maps would look? Instead of just seeing red states and blue states, we’d have all sorts of crazy colors representing different factors.

Of course, this will never happen – partly because it would be completely insane, but also because changing our voting system requires amending the Constitution. And as anyone who’s ever tried to get a group of politicians to agree on anything knows, that’s no easy feat.

So for now, we’re stuck with good old-fashioned Electoral College math – whether we like it or not.