Watkins column: Don’t abolish the Electoral College

-A A +A

Guest columnist Wil Watkins is a senior at Indian Land High School.

Like him or not, Donald Trump is your president. 
You may say that he didn’t win the popular vote, and you would be correct. Pat yourself on the back for understanding something that 66 percent of Americans don’t. He did win the Electoral College vote.
The Electoral College is perhaps the single greatest clause that the framers installed into the Constitution. It was created to insure that our democracy would remain intact for as long as possible without devolving into a direct democracy, which is where every single vote would count equally toward one massive, countrywide total. Instead, every state has a certain number of votes determined by population that are awarded to the candidate if they win the popular vote in the state.
If our election process moved toward a direct democracy, then the candidates would fly over small towns and head for big cities, like Los Angeles and New York City (neither of whose states have voted red since 1988 and 1984, respectively). The big cities of the nation would dominate the elections, and small communities like Indian Land would get very little attention from the candidates.
Advocates for the abolishment of the Electoral College might argue that small towns would still have a voice in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and that each individual vote actually counts. However, the party that loses the executive race usually wins the legislative race in the coming years. And if that would hold true (as it did in the most recent congressional elections, not to mention the 2010 red wave), would a stalemate between the president and Congress really be the best thing for this country? 
In my conservative opinion, the best thing to happen would be a Republican Congress to accompany a Republican president and a conservative Supreme Court, but even I can see the dangers of it. Yet despite my personal preferences, I would rather have a Democratic Congress with a Democratic president and a liberal Supreme Court than have a stalemate, because at least then something will get done. But thank the framers we rarely have to experience something so one-sided. With the Electoral College, the one-sided nature of politics does rear its ugly head, but the occurrences are few and far between (once every eight years, give or take).  If you think that one-party politics isn’t so bad and that it does work, that’s OK. I applaud your commitment to your beliefs, and I implore you to research deeper into them. Might I suggest asking the Romans how well their one party system worked? Or what about the ancient Greeks? The Ottoman Empire? Oh, wait…
You might think that I don’t know anything; that I’m just a kid who hasn’t lived enough of his life to understand the complex intricacies of the world. You’re not wrong. But is it so bad to have a young viewpoint presented to you?
I’ve found in my short life that those who scream at the top of their lungs while arguing with someone with opposing opinions are often those who are the least informed and the most narrow-minded. So if you disagree with me, it’s OK. All I ask is that you understand why you disagree.
The Electoral College is a great thing for this country, and it should be here to stay.