Editorial: Quick fix wouldn’t help much

Friday, Nov. 17, 2000 | 9:39 a.m.

Al Gore likely will win the popular vote, but George W. Bush will capture the presidency if he obtains a majority of the Electoral College votes. This seeming incongruity has prompted calls to change the Constitution by scrapping the Electoral College and instead electing presidents based on a popular vote. Amending the Constitution is a long-shot, so some states are talking about eliminating their winner-take-all distribution of electoral votes, a change they believe would be fairer than the current system. Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller says he will ask the 2001 Legislature to scrap Nevada's winner-take-all method, instead allocating electoral votes based on the state's popular vote.

A problem with such a change is that proportional representation is a close cousin to a popular vote, potentially diluting what little say Nevada already has. While the large states always will be the big prizes in the hunt for the White House, under our Electoral College system their influence is tempered. For instance, California was considered a lock for Gore so he barely campaigned there for its 54 electoral votes, feeling no need to run up the score. This allowed Gore to stump in tossup states, including smaller ones such as Nevada, where the winner gets a clean sweep. In contrast, a split of Nevada's four electoral votes hardly would be as enticing.

The current system may not be perfect, but it has served our nation well, requiring presidential candidates to conduct genuine nationwide campaigns. The Legislature should avoid a quick fix, then, that could reduce the state's already limited voice in deciding who the next president will be.

archive