More than 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers created a special system for electing presidents, one that aimed to distribute power evenly among the states.

They created the Electoral College, under which electors meet after the election to officially cast votes for each state. Whoever wins a majority in each state wins all of its electors.

It makes the presidential race a contest in each individual state. It doesn’t matter if someone wins with 50.1 percent or by a wide margin. The result is still the same.

For many years the Electoral College has raised questions about fairness. It’s very possible that the candidate who wins a majority of the national vote won’t get elected.

It’s happened twice in recent years. The first was the 2000 race between Bush and Gore. The second was in 2016, with Trump and Hillary Clinton.

I used to think that we should keep the Electoral College. I thought it meant that large states like California, Texas and New York wouldn’t control the election. Now I’m not so sure.

The reason for my uncertainty is that we have a consistent pattern in presidential races. The South and the Great Plains always vote Republican. The Northeast and West Coast always vote for Democrats. They’re likely to keep doing that except maybe in a landslide year.

There are about 10 states that have gone back and forth, and that always have close races. The results is that candidates invest most of their time and money trying to win those swing states.

It seems that in 2024 most of the attention has been centered around Pennsylvania and Michigan. They’re in the spotlight. States that always go with the same party are largely ignored during the campaign.

It would be nice if both candidates campaigned in all 50 states. If the election were based on only the national popular vote, any place that can offer the possibility of a higher voting percentage would help the candidate.

There are many Republicans in most blue states and many Democrats in most red states. At this point it might seem to them like their votes don’t count. It might lead a few of them to just stay home on Election Day unless at least one local race sparks interest.

Staying home is the worst thing voters can do. It’s important that they cast their votes either in person or by absentee. It ensures a free political process.

Minnesota is consistently one of the best when it comes to voter turnout. It would be good if every state had turnouts with the same numbers.

I strongly favor non-partisan efforts to encourage people to vote. Even when politics is negative and divisive, it’s vital that everyone participates.

It’s possible that a switch to popular vote might help turnout. I’m not totally decided yet, but I’m starting to think it might be a good idea. It would be far less complicated, since we’d be watching one overall total rather than 50 different results from each state.

I’m hoping this year that the popular vote winner also gets the most votes in the Electoral College. It could happen, but then again it might not.

The United States is a vastly different country than it was when the Electoral College was created. There’s less of a need for electors to validate the results. It’s something that should be carefuly evaluated.

Maybe a committee should be formed to study the issue. It might be possible to make a change before Election 2028. It’s important that we go with the best possible system, one that reflects our commitment to freedom.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent