Our system also flawed

Dear Editor: Last month, the electoral college of the United States formally elected Donald Trump as its next president.

This occurred despite Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton receiving 2,865,000 more votes than Trump. This marks the second time in recent history that the winner of the popular vote lost the election.

In 2000, Al Gore received 544,000 more votes for president than George W. Bush, but was defeated by a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision, which ordered the halting of a recount in Florida.

The 2016 outcome has called into question the legitimacy of the electoral college in determining its president. In practice, the EC takes the total of House and Senate seats in each state and awards the winner of the state the entire allocation. House seats are based on population as of the most recent census (2010), but each state elects one representative and two senators no matter its population.

Critics of the EC contend it gives greater electoral clout to smaller states at the expense of larger ones.

I undertook an analysis of the impact this had on selected Democrat and Republican states in 2016.

The solid Democrat states of California, New York and Illinois made up 22.5 per cent of the US population, but they represent only 19.3 per cent of electoral college votes.

By contrast, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming are reliably Republican states. Their combined population is 6.6 per cent of the U.S. population, but they account for almost 10 per cent of the Electoral College. It is arguable the election was skewed in Donald Trump’s favour by the EC.

The electoral college model is unique to the U.S., but many other countries elect their president by popular vote. A further problem arises by the fact that almost all the campaigning, resources, and advertising spending is concentrated on what is known as battleground states, where the contest between nominees is expected to be close. This leaves out the significant majority of states where the winner is a foregone conclusion.

In summary, the electoral college has significant flaws, just like our own first-past-the-post system where parties can form majority governments with less than 40 per cent of the overall vote.

Bruce Gajerski Kelowna