Commentary

Nicholas Roznovsky
Texas ( U-Wire )

COLLEGE STATION, Texas (U-WIRE) - After the votes are counted, one man will be proclaimed the president-elect of the United States.

Then on Dec. 18, the real election will take place. Never mind the teeming millions who took the time to punch their ballots the month before - only 538 votes count in this race.

In a secretive ceremony, the members of the Electoral College will seal their votes and send them to Washington, D.C.

Finally, on Jan. 6, Congress will count those votes and announce the next president of the United States.

For a nation that claims to embrace change and social evolution, the United States has an outdated and redundant election system.

It is time for the Electoral College to go.

Although America has changed a lot since 1789, the way it elects its presidents remains essentially the same.

It is a system that discourages citizen participation, minimizes the impact of third-party candidates and misrepresents the electoral balance of the states.

In short, the Electoral College is starting to look a little shabby as the 21st century begins.

In states such as Texas, where the winner is plainly known to all months before the election takes place, average citizens do not have any incentive to vote.

There was little doubt that George W. Bush would receive all 32 electoral votes from Texas.

When elections become foregone conclusions, people stop voting. Despite this year's outstanding voter turnout, the single-vote-does-not-make-a-difference attitude will be further reinforced by the Electoral College system.

Currently, only Nebraska and Maine do not use the winner-take-all system to determine their states' electoral ballots. The remaining states award the whole enchilada to the candidate with the greatest popular vote tally.

Theoretically, up to 49 percent of a state's electorate can go without representation in such a system if the opposition candidate garners the remaining 51 percent. The Electoral College system does not reward candidates who make strong showings in hotly contested races - it treats them the same as candidates who are soundly defeated.

Another negative effect of the Electoral College is the lack of representation it gives third-party candidates.

In 1992, H. Ross Perot received 19 percent of the national popular vote, but not a single electoral vote, since he failed to capture a majority in any state. An electoral process that completely disregards one-fifth of the electorate cannot be called a representative system.

The 538 votes in the Electoral College, one for each of a state's congressional members and three for the District of Columbia, do not paint an accurate picture of the American population.

Based on 1990 census data, each electoral vote from Alaska represents approximately 112,000 eligible voters.

In contrast, each elector from New York represents 404,000 eligible voters. It does not take a math whiz to figure out that New Yorkers are getting less bang for their buck when it comes to electing the president.

Americans have proven to be capable of directly electing their representatives and senators. What is wrong with each American finally getting an equal say in electing the president?

California, which has only 11 percent of the national population, holds 54 electoral votes - 20 percent of the 270 votes needed to win the presidency.

The candidate who captures California is already one-fifth of the way to victory. Only the 11 most populous states are needed to win the election.

Federalism is an important concept that is brought up again and again in the Constitution. A system that allows a minority of states to negate the vote of the 39 others is not compatible with states' rights.

The main defense of Electoral College supporters is invariably that it is "what the framers had in mind." There is no dispute that the writers of the Constitution wanted to keep the ill-informed masses from directly electing their leaders.

Their reasons have been well documented and lauded by numerous scholars throughout the years. The Electoral College was a solution that fit 18th-century America well.

However, information is now easily accessible to the public through television, newspapers, the Internet and other media. The electoral process should no longer fear the influence of the "ignorant masses."

In truth, the masses have been in the know for quite a while now.

Fortunately, America has not felt the need to stick to the framers' intentions when it comes to other areas. If it had, the voters Tuesday would have been all white property owners.

The Constitution is a living document. What the forefathers truly had in mind was a document that could be adapted to address new issues as the United States evolved.

The principles established in 1789 were the beginnings of a new nation, not the final blueprint.

In the end, the Electoral College it is an antiquated system that discourages participation and distorts the will of the people.

Two hundred years ago, it was good idea. Today, its merits are heavily outweighed by its drawbacks.

It is time for the American form of government to become more representative.

It is time for the political elite to relinquish its power to the people.