Election 2000Back to Election 2000 homeLetter to the Editor: Boston Globe (submitted 11/21)The 2000 election shines a bright light on the accuracy of our vote recording and counting technology. Under normal circumstances, voting margins overwhelm small errors. In a close race, as we have seen, the errors dominate.Some have called for eliminating the Electoral College, claiming that the popular vote more closely expresses the will of the people. In a close election, however, a popular vote approach would almost certainly trigger nationwide recounts. No one debates that the current Electoral College makeup disproportionately favors states with lower population. Arguably, this advantage makes for a more national campaign, and is certainly not inherently flawed. The Electoral College, far from being the problem, actually offers a solution--of sorts. Instead of a winner-take-all format, consider assigning delegates in proportion to the popular vote. In Florida, if the current narrow margin holds, Governor Bush would receive 13 electoral votes to Vice President Gore's 12. Small vote swings would only change the tally by one vote each, compared to the 25 presently at stake. Extending this approach to all 50 states plus the District of Columbia yields the following result: Bush 264, Gore 266, Nader 8. Enter, House of Representatives! Equitably apportioning the Nader votes raises the two leading tallies by four votes each: Bush 268, Gore 270. In either case, Gore's Electoral College lead would mirror his popular vote lead. Were it not for the imfamous Palm Beach County ballot, Gore's "victory" in the latter scenario would arguably best represent the collective will of the voters in Florida and nationwide. And every vote still counts. Jeff Dieffenbach Wayland Back to Election 2000 home |