The year 2020 will bring crucially important expressions of American democracy. We will elect every member of the House of Representatives by majority vote in each member’s district. We will elect 35 senators by majority vote in states having open seats.

All of these elections will be decided with every voter having a vote equal to every other voter. It seems to be the voice of democracy in its purest form. But there will also be the election of the president, and that’s where things are very different.

The president will not be elected by a majority of Americans. He or she will be elected by the Electoral College, a body of electors established by the Constitution and convened every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president. It consists of 538 electors, and a majority of 270 votes is required to win election.

Each state’s number of electors is equal to the combined total of the state’s membership in the Senate and House of Representatives. This is where the concept of one-person-one-vote disappears. Consider: The least populated state, Wyoming (with a population of 577,000), has 3 electoral votes, while North Carolina (10.4 million residents) has 15. For purposes of arithmetic comparison, this means that for each vote cast by a voter in North Carolina, a voter in Wyoming has the equivalent of 3.5 votes.

So, what do we do about this glaring inequity? The answer is — nothing. A change in the methodology of Electoral College voting will require an amendment to the Constitution, requiring the approval of two-thirds of the states. That means that those states having less than the average population of all states would have to give up their leveraged benefit in electing the president. They are not going to do that.

However, that’s not the end of the issue. There is a separate — and more troublesome — issue regarding how each state casts its votes. Pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, each state legislature determines the manner by which its state’s electors are chosen. Herein lies the problem.

All but two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. This means that in 2016, more than 1.7 million votes for Donald Trump in Virginia were simply thrown out, and in North Carolina, 2.1 million votes for Hillary Clinton were ignored. And, of course, although Clinton won the nationwide popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, she went home the loser because Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote. Whether this is a horrific example of democracy betrayed or a blessed result depends on whether the observer is sitting in the blue bleachers or the red ones.

Maine and Nebraska use the “congressional district method” for allocating Electoral College votes, selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996. No state allocates its electoral votes in direct proportion to the votes for each candidate.

So, why doesn’t someone bring a federal case to disallow the winner-take-all destruction of the one-person-one-vote principle? It is because such an action would seem to be sailing against the wind as a result of the Supreme Court’s very recent gerrymandering decision.

In that case, North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the state’s districting plan diluted the votes of Democrats, and in Maryland the plaintiffs claimed that the state’s districting plan diluted the votes of Republicans. There was no question that both states’ legislatures engaged in the practice of partisan gerrymandering. As one of the two Republicans chairing the Carolina redistricting committee stated, “The map was drawn with the aim of electing 10 Republicans and three Democrats because we did not believe it would be possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.” If this is not the erasure of the fundamentals of democracy, then one cannot be found.

Nevertheless, quoting the late Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Fairness does not seem to us a judicially manageable standard … Some criterion more solid and more demonstrable than that seems necessary to enable the state legislatures to discern the limits of their districting discretion, to meaningfully constrain the discretion of the courts, and to win public acceptance for the courts’ intrusion into a process that is the very foundation of democratic decision-making.”

Obviously, the chief justice does not consider the principle of one-person,-one-vote to be at the heart of fundamental democracy, nor does he think it deserving of constitutional protection. So, things are not going to change in 2020.


(8) comments

Kent Misegades

If one believes Fake News, there is no voter fraud. All it takes is one fraudulent vote. Heritage recently reported: “ Across the nation, hundreds of counties have more registered voters than residents. In June, California began a process of removing a staggering 5 million inactive registrations from its rolls—but only after it was sued by Judicial Watch.”. Motor Voter laws in California work like this: an illegal shows up at DMV and applies for a driver license. A ‘helper’ hands him a voter registration form and asks only for the signature, promising to complete the form and send it in. Voter registration ‘harvesting’ is a paid racket, made possible my Motor Voter laws and a traitorous California State government. I suggest we extend Trump’s Beautiful Perfect Wall among the eastern borders of CA, OR and WA, the lands of fruits, nuts and corrupt politics.

Conrad Meyer

The 2020 election will only be a controversy IF AND ONLY IF the democrats lose again.

Kent Misegades

Guaranteed. Then they will claim Botswana for meddling in the election. Or Cameroon.

Peyton Cook

In invite the author to take the Hillsdale College course on the Constitution and to read David Stewart’s “The Summer of 1787”. This is the story of the writing of the Constitution. These sources should provide you how the Founders created a unique method for every sovereign State to influence the outcome the Presidents election. Election by popular vote would prevent the small population States from having any impact.

Kent Misegades

Exact. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers to get a good impression of the debate around all details of the Constitution.

Kent Misegades

The author must have attended government schools as he clearly knows little about the intent of the Founding Fathers in devising the Electoral College. It is a further check against mob rule that comes with pure Democracies. These United States remain 50 sovereign states where the bulk of political control rightly resides. The Electors represent the states, not the people directly. It is the same with Senators. They represent first and foremost the unique interests of their state. Without the Electoral College, the US would be controlled by California and New York. It is fairly well known that around one million illegal aliens in California voted in the 2016 election, thanks to their practice of issuing drivers licenses to illegals. Thank God for the Electoral College and the inspired wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Barbara Misiaszek

It is NOT "fairly well known" that around 1,000,000 illegals voted in California in the 2016 election !

John Misiaszek

Mark Hayes

It is " fairly unknown " how many illegals voted in California !

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Comments that violate any of the rules above are subject to removal by staff.

Thank you for reading!

Please purchase a subscription to continue reading. Subscribe today and support local community journalism.

Digital Only Subscriptions

Get 24-7 digital-only access and support award-winning community journalism. This gives you access to and its electronic replica edition.

Starting at
$5.35 for 30 days

Already a Print Subscriber? Get Digital Access Free.

As a print subscriber , you also receive unlimited digital access. You can do that here. For any problems, call our customer service number at 910-693-2487 or 693-2488.

Free access for current print subscribers

Home Delivery

Get all the news of Moore County delivered to your home each Wednesday and Sunday with home delivery. Your home delivery subscription also includes unlimited digital access to

Starting at
$27.82 for 90 days