Every vote should be equal

You do not have to be a resident of Florida to feel like a
disfranchised voter. You can have that feeling right here in
California.

For the next month, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry will be
traveling to the political hot spots of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania
and a few other swing states. They will spend millions of dollars
and have their respective volunteers go door to door asking voters
to support them on Nov. 2.

They will bend their messages to please a small group of swing
voters in very particular geographic areas. Strategists will
analyze the voting trends in several key zip codes and base
nation-wide campaign strategies on their data.

And no one will be the wiser. This election will be won by
walking door to door in Florida and catering messages to key zip
codes in Ohio.

As Bush’s and Kerry’s secret service caravans keep
running into each other in small towns in swing states, the voters
of the three largest states ““ California, Texas and New York
““ probably will not even have a chance to see the candidates
campaign in their states.

What can explain this disproportionate interest in some voters
over others? Were we not taught in second grade that we all have an
equal vote when electing our president? Why are 100 voters in Ohio
more important than 1,000 voters in California? Are there any
babies left in Ohio that Bush and Kerry have not kissed yet?

The Electoral College is the culprit.

After the 2000 election we were all reminded that we do not
elect our president through direct democracy ““ it is possible
for a person to lose the popular vote but still win the
presidency.

The Electoral College, a relic of America’s federalist
past, causes the concerns of the few to supersede the concerns of
the many, simply because of geographic realities. Does it make
sense that tariffs were imposed on imported steel to attract a
limited number of voters in the hotly contested state of
Pennsylvania, while many people in less-contested states where hurt
by the repercussions? I think not.

For people like me, the Electoral College is perceived as an
artifact of American history ““ it rarely affects presidential
races and few people have really paid attention to it.

The 2000 election should have been a wake-up call for everyone.
But, like most things that are important in Washington, Electoral
College reform slipped through the cracks.

The current election should finally show Americans that the
archaic winner-takes-all electoral system is broken.

When America was founded, people’s allegiances were first
based on what state they where from, not what country they where
citizens of. In the 21st century, we consider ourselves Americans
first. Shouldn’t the way we elect our president reflect this
change?

The change to either a direct election or a proportional
Electoral College system would empower everyone. Republicans in
California would have a chance to actually affect national politics
and Democrats in Texas would not feel powerless anymore. A voter in
Alaska would be as important as a voter in Florida.

The writers of the Constitution did not entrust people with too
much power. When this country began, neither the senatorial nor the
presidential race was determined by the people. Slowly, the masses
have shown the elite that they can be trusted with power, so why
not allow all of us to elect the person who can order us to fight
and die for our country?

The United States is for the people and by the people, but
somehow I don’t feel that’s true when I vote for the
president.

Hell, when I watch the debates, I want to know that my vote will
count toward the election of the next president of the United
States. Is that really too much to ask in the supposed beacon of
democracy?

Barbalat is a fourth-year economics and microbiology,
immunology and molecular genetics student. He was a 2003-2004
assistant Viewpoint editor.