You may remember that in the 2000 election, Bush won (or should we say ‘was awarded’) the presidency despite not winning the popular vote, which went to Al Gore. History also tells us that this happened also in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison was elected despite incumbent Grover Cleveland winning the popular vote.

I attended an election panel on campus the other day in which one panelist defended the electoral college by saying something to the effect that well, it’s only happened twice in our country’s history and that doesn’t sound like a constitutional crisis to me. Excuse me? How about the argument that it should never, ever happen in a country that is supposedly the pinnacle of democracy?!?

With that in mind, in a short article entitled “The Creative Math Behind Elections,” the November 2004 issue of Wired Magazine described different options available to do away with the outdated and decidely undemocratic electoral college:

CUMULATIVE VOTING
Promise: You get a bunch of votes -- say, 10 -- to distribute however you’d like: 10 votes to your favorite candidate, or perhaps 3 to one and 7 to another.
Precinct: Numerous jurisdictions in Alabama and Texas, and many corporate boards.
Problem: Giving all 10 votes to your top choice might handicap your second, who then turns out to be the one with a chance to beat the ultimate winner (who you hate). But 5 votes each to your first and second choices might hurt your favorite.

INSTANT RUNOFF
Promise: Voters rank the candidates, and their top picks are tallied. If that doesn’t produce a majority winner (one with more than 50% of the votes), the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped, and his/her supporters’ ballots are recounted and allocated to the second choice. Process continues until there’s a winner.
Precinct: Australia, Ireland, and San Francisco.
Problem: Strong challenger to one person/one vote but isn’t perfect. Mathemetical models prove that ranking a candidate lower can cause that person to climb in the overall rankings. It also assumes more than two candidates per race.

APPROVAL VOTING
Promise: Voters give one point to every candidate they consider acceptable.
Precinct: Many professional associations.
Problem: Doesn’t distinguish between a great candidate and an adequate one. Most people vote for only one candidate (their favorite), while some select several, potentially making results wildly errratic.

BORDA COUNT
Promise: Point values are assigned to voter rankings of each candidate. If there are eight candidates, first place is worth eight points, second place is worth seven, and so on. High score wins.
Precinct: The Associated Press polls for college football and basketball.
Problem: Theoretically immune to outcomes opposite of voter intentions. But voters may not know or care enough about each candidate to decide, say, who should be sixth versus seventh. Millions of votes would be arbitrary.

I personally like the instant runoff process myself, but anything is better than this innane electoral college crap.