NEW CASTLE —
As we write this, we don’t know who will win this year’s presidential election.
And it’s possible that by the time you read this, you won’t know either.
Polling data leading up to yesterday’s voting routinely indicated a close contest. Depending on how the results break, and any problems or controversies that may arise, some analysts openly worry that it could be days — if not longer — before the presidential victor is known.
Meanwhile, another worry raised about this year’s presidential contest was the possibility one candidate could win the popular vote, while the other would win the electoral vote.
This has happened before in presidential elections. Most recently, it occurred in the 2000 race, when Al Gore received more popular votes, but George W. Bush recorded the most votes via the Electoral College and was handed the Oval Office.
The Electoral College, of course, is the constitutional requirement that states name electors who then cast the ballots that count for president. The process varies somewhat, but most states have winner-takes-all electoral votes. And if a candidate receives the most popular votes in a given state, that state’s electors are expected to vote for that person.
What this means is that in a close election — as this one will be — it’s possible for a candidate to receive the most electoral votes, but not the most popular votes.
In 2000, many Democrats groused about the results and there were calls to do away with the Electoral College. That, of course, did not happen. This time around, will Republicans be wishing the Constitution had been amended?
This issue involves more than just sour grapes and a failure to accept the language of the Constitution. A president who fails to win the popular vote is open to complaints about lack of legitimacy. The situation poses a political distraction the nation does not need.
So what should be done? Amend the Constitution? That’s a slow, cumbersome process that could run out of steam before results are achieved.
There is, however, another possibility that’s already in the works.
It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far, eight states and the District of Columbia have signed it. This agreement would have states award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of who carried that particular state.
Significantly, states are allowed to do this under the Constitution.
The compact would take effect only when enough states with the majority of electoral votes agree to it. Then these states would alter their electoral rules accordingly.
Regardless of what happens in this year’s presidential contest, we wouldn’t be surprised to see this voting compact receive new attention.
Editorials
Our Opinion: Presidential selection process poses problems in close contests
- Editorials
-
-
Our Opinion: Lousy voter turnout is a missed opportunity
Tuesday’s primary in Lawrence County had its share of winners and losers. But — based on the numbers — the biggest winner has to be voter apathy. Countywide, voter turnout in the primary was a whopping 17.1 percent. In case you missed it, our use of the term “whopping” is sarcasm.
-
Our Opinion: Pennsylvania’s primary system is controlled by parties
Should Pennsylvania’s primaries be open to independent voters? That’s an interesting question and one we have explored in the past on this page.
-
Our Opinion: State audit says city school district failed to collect from non-residents
Audit information about non-resident students who didn’t pay tuition at New Castle raises more questions than it answers. At least so far. We expect more details when the Pennsylvania auditor general’s office completes its report and the New Castle school district provides its response.
-
Our Opinion: Make the most of your power to vote by casting ballot tomorrow
So what kind of turnout will there be for tomorrow’s primary? Recent history suggests somewhere between low and lousy. This year’s elections are devoted to local races, and there are few major ones being contested in the primary.
-
Our Opinion: Privatization of county jail is worthy of examination
Generally speaking, we support government efforts to seek more efficient ways to provide essential services. So we have no problem with the decision by the Lawrence County commissioners to solicit proposals for the private operation of the county jail.
-
Our Opinion: We endorse candidates for New Castle board
The New Castle school district is often a study in contrasts. There are complaints about the district on everything from taxes to nepotism, from test scores to ethical slights. Yet at the same time, plenty of students within the district excel. It’s a tribute to the hard work of those students, their families and the educators who support them.
-
Our Opinion: You should be frightened, outraged by IRS abuse of power
When people talk about government posing a threat to citizens, a common topic these days is unmanned drones. But a more credible threat may be the Internal Revenue Service. This agency, responsible for collecting taxes and enforcing related rules, has the ability to make life miserable for the average individual.
-
Our Opinion: Our endorsements for City Council race
The city of New Castle needs help. Financially distressed and operating under Pennsylvania’s Act 47, New Castle must find ways to reverse its population loss and fiscal challenges.
-
Our Opinion: Court frowns on gerrymandering, but only slightly
Pennsylvania legislators have received the green light to put their own political interests ahead of yours. That’s a key point in the latest Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on legislative apportionment in the commonwealth.
-
Our Opinion: Study says distracted driving deaths are under reported
Suppose you operated a piece of heavy machinery at your job. And suppose it’s machinery that moves quickly with little effort. What would happen if you decided to take one hand off that equipment — while it was still in motion — and instead focused your attention on a telephone call?
- More Editorials Headlines
-
