'Electoral Votes' Intend to
Support Rural Population

In a close election race the Electoral Vote currently swings in favor of one candidate who wins slightly more than the majority of votes. However, the electoral count is not representative of state population except in Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Vermont. At press time, President George W Bush calls Texas, not only his home state but, a "win" for Electoral Votes. Why would a supporter of Sen. John Kerry in Dallas bother to vote in November 2004 if his vote will ultimately go to Bush? Would he vote simply because it is his right? His vote will not count in scheme of Electoral Votes, but would count if majority rules. The Electoral Vote system itself is blamed for overall low voter turnout in the United States, but voter apathy is growing in countries without an electoral system.

Fewer voters understand the Electoral Vote process than those who do. And yet, the Electoral Vote numbers put George W Bush in the White House rather than Al Gore in year 2000, despite Gore's win of majority votes. The issue was tabled shortly after the 2000 elections, and it remains unchanged and unchallenged as election 2004 approaches. The voting margin between Bush and Gore was 1 percent. The electoral system expanded that margin to 4 percent.

Should the Electoral Vote process be scrapped or changed? Should the United States simply adopt a "majority rules" voting tally? Critics argue that the urban populations would vote down the rural population. That would not have been the case in year 2000. Does the Electoral Vote favor a special group of rural voters above city dwellers?

The Electoral Vote process itself was intended to boost smaller state votes against states with greater populations. However, with a different method -- more reflective of the population of each state -- even in the closely contended 2000 election, the Electoral Vote failed to boost smaller state votes.

Winning Electoral Votes is the goal of both President George W Bush and challenger Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Bush and Kerry aggressively market themselves in battle states -- Missouri, Colorado and Florida to name three. Both candidates avoid New York and California; because Kerry says those states will side with him. Would it not be a fairer approach to take Bush's votes from California and New York to apply to his overall total of votes? Bush supporters in California and New York may not feel their vote is worth the trouble in 2 November 2004. The majority does not rule, as we found in year 2000.

At present, Electoral Votes for residents of Wyoming weigh 73 percent heavier than votes from California. Why would Wyoming, with a population of less than half a million, be more important than California with 34 million residents? Why would South Carolina see the fewest Electoral Votes of any state per person?

Bush and Kerry are fighting for at least 270 Electoral Votes out of 538 possible (or .501859 percent the lowest possible ratio.) Generally, the more populated a state, except for South Carolina, the less valuable (per person) the Electoral Vote holds true.

In year 2000, 50,456,002 votes were cast for George W Bush (271 electoral votes); 50,999,897 votes were cast for Al Gore (266 electoral votes) and 2,882,955 votes went to Ralph Nader, slightly more than 900,000 votes were not counted.

In the table provided, state-by-state population is represented by an equal ratio of population to electoral votes. Even with the Electoral Vote better representing the population as we have adapted, neither Bush nor Gore would have won the necessary Electoral Vote. Should there have been a run-off election, or should the majority of votes collected have determined the winner?

In the more accurately represent Electoral Vote (1 per 225,000 people) for year 2000, Gore and Bush took away 624 each. Under this plan, had Gore won Alaska, or Bush won the District of Columbia, a true winner would have emerged not only with the majority of votes but with Electoral Votes as well. In other words, an Electoral Vote system representative of the state population does work and results in an equal ration of winning votes in both majority and electorates.

Going into election 2004, the current Electoral Vote process may determine the winner, not based upon majority votes, but instead upon a margin favoring a special group of voters -- and thus, by default, puts-off some voters who think their state will go to one candidate they would rather not see in the White House.

(In 2000, Al Gore won CA, OR, WA, NM, HI, MN, IA, WI, IL, MI, PA, NY, VT, ME RI MA CT NJ DE MD DC) Gore won 260 electoral votes to George W Bush's 271 electoral votes or a 4 percent difference vesus a population difference of only 1 percent.