It’s finally over. By the time I had shut off my TV at 3 a.m. on Wednesday, I couldn’t have cared less who had won the election.
I woke up at 7 a.m. that morning after four hours of sleep with campaign promises and rhetoric behind me only to be greeted with the question: “Who will the Democrats put up in 2020?” Four hours, that’s all I got.
I do have a couple of questions, however. How is it that a candidate can get more votes than his/her rival and still lose the election? Of course I know that the answer has to do with the Electoral College. This event has happened five times in our nation’s history — John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George Bush in 2000, and now Donald Trump in 2016.
The Electoral College was first established in 1787 and has gone through several changes over the years, due to the changes in our country’s character and makeup. The name “Electoral College” wasn’t used until the beginning of the 19th century, but the institution was functional.
Our Founding Fathers had several reasons why they felt it was necessary. Among them was the fact that they didn’t want the states with the biggest populations to completely determine election results. They were concerned with regional preferences. Racial issues also played a role as “slave states” did not count slaves as part of the population.
However, our country has changed and continues to change. What was true in 1787 is not necessarily true now. The Electoral College is fraught with problems. Once again, the person with the most total votes did not win the election. Consider a baseball game where the Red Sox score eight runs, and the Yankees score but three. Some genius comes up with the formula that since the Yankees scored their runs in the last three innings — “obviously ” the most crucial part of the contest — their total should be multiplied by pi. This brings the Yankees’ score to 9.42 and they win the game. This is the “Electoral Scoreboard” in action.
My next question is, are we one nation? If so, shouldn’t the nation as a whole determine the winner? This question is not as simple as it might seem.
Colin Woodard has written a book, “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.” When we look at how the country voted, it is obvious that there are blocks or areas of the country that vote in lockstep with each other year after year. If each area is a “nation,” perhaps we should have several presidents. We certainly had more than enough candidates a year and a half ago. Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate the usefulness of the Electoral College. It’s 2016, not 1787.
My final question is, does this letter represent “sour grapes?” I can answer that one unequivocally — “YES! Bernie would have won!”
Jonathan Kahane lives in Westhampton.