It seems that the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates aren’t the only ones supporting the elimination of the Electoral College. According to a poll by Politico, 50 percent of voters say the presidency should go to the winner of the popular vote, with only 34 percent believing the current system should remain in place.

Unsurprisingly, this issue is largely split along partisan lines: 64 percent of Republicans favor the current system, but 60 percent of Democrats want to see elections determined by the popular vote.

The support for abolishing the Electoral College is frightening, especially to those who live in areas that would have virtually no representation under a pure popular vote. Montana holds 3 of the total 538 electoral votes. This gives the state 0.51% of the electoral vote. Although this is a small, fairly unimpactful number, it is bigger than the effect that the state would have under a popular vote system. Only 0.32% of the U.S. population resides in Montana.

It is often argued that this system is unfair because the vote of a person in a small state matters more than the vote of a person in a large state. It is true that a voter in Wyoming has over three times the impact in where the state’s electoral votes go than a California voter does. Even though an individual has more impact within their state, the state is still much less important to the overall election.

Without the Electoral College, rural voices would be silenced. In America, all voices deserve to be heard. Due to the differences in lifestyle throughout the country, we cannot use a system that would eliminate the power of all small states.

Texas and Illinois are the only states that are largely consumed with farm land, but still have a big enough population to receive a high number of electoral votes. Besides them, farming states tend to have smaller populations. In studies, it has been shown that states with a higher percentage of working class citizens are more likely to vote Republican in presidential elections. More people involved in farming, fishing, and forestry voted for Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton in 2016. The majority of farmers live in the Midwest, in areas that are less populous. If these working class voices were not represented by the Electoral College, Donald Trump would have likely not been elected president.

Due to lifestyle differences, it makes sense that voting patterns would be different between classes. Without the Electoral College, people in professions that are more common to rural areas would have no power in who is elected president. As stated, small states would have practically no effect on the outcome of the presidential election. Candidates would have no reason to make campaign stops anywhere that is not a major city, because urban areas hold 82 percent of the U.S. population.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to maintain our Republic and protect the power and sovereignty of small states within the country. Without it, the only voices that will be heard are those in large cities. Rural ideas will not be represented in presidential elections, and our country will be controlled by “mob rule.”

The Electoral College was put in place for a reason. As American citizens, it is our responsibility to be informed of the importance of this system. If we remain ignorant and abolish the Electoral College, we will lose a major piece of freedom in our country.

Related

Rachael Stevenson Rachael Stevenson is a Senior at Hobson School in Central Montana. She lives and works on her family’s cattle ranch, and hopes to pursue a career in writing after high school. She enjoys competing in rodeos, reading, and listening to podcasts from The Daily Wire.

The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.