The Value of the Electoral College

America just wrapped up another presidential election, and in the wake of it a number of people are, once again, discussing the purpose of the Electoral College system. In recent times, many have asked whether it is time to start electing the President by popular vote only.

It’s an understandable question. In 2000, Al Gore won the national popular vote, but lost the election to George W. Bush thanks to the Electoral College, and this year President Obama’s 303 electoral votes looked like something of a landslide even though he barely squeaked by in virtually every battleground state. In Ohio, for instance, the President only received 50.1% of the vote, but that was all he needed to get all 18 of the state’s electoral votes. So with this in mind, would it be better for America to switch to a nationwide popular vote? The answer is no. Here’s why:


Evangelicals Want More than Lesser of Two Evils

It seems there is a growing misunderstanding on the part of candidates and lawmakers where evangelical Christians are concerned. Candidates treat Christians like one conservative demographic they need to court in order to be sure they have a good enough base of support to win an election. Candidates seem to think that saying, “I’m pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-religious-freedom, and my opponent is anti-life, anti-marriage, and anti-religious-freedom,” is good enough to secure that vote. Here’s what candidates do not understand: Christians want someone who runs on a platform bigger than simply, “I’m not my opponent.”