Universal suffrage and the principle of “one man, one vote” seem so obviously fair that many Americans cannot conceive of a better way. But our Founding Fathers did: the electoral college, one of many artful compromises that allowed a more perfect union to be formed.
In almost any situation requiring a vote, one can conduct a popular election, providing ballots to all who have a stake in the outcome, and let majority will prevail. Or one can create an electoral-college system in which groups are established with one vote each – or a set number of votes determined by an agreed-upon formula.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, representatives of less populous states were naturally concerned that more populous ones would dominate the new government, with the result that residents of a few large urban areas would be able to dictate to rural residents whose needs and desires might be quite different.
The electoral college was one way of addressing these concerns, as was the establishment of an upper chamber (the Senate) in Congress with equal representation for all states.
This concern for being outvoted by the big-city folk and effectively having no say in our own government is still with us today, and should be. Without the electoral college to protect our interests, the voters of New York and California alone could decide every presidential election.
There are no electoral colleges for state-level elections, but maybe there should be. That would be one way of keeping voters in large cities like Chicago from dictating to the rest of the state. Another way would be to divide large states like Illinois into two or more new states.
The Madison County Board is now considering including a “Separation Referendum” on the Nov. 3 ballot, not to decide the issue, but merely to start the conversation and gauge public sentiment. Separation is a serious step, not something we want to rush into, but it may be the best solution and we need to talk about it.