Did you know that the New York Yankees actually defeated the Boston Red Sox in this year's American League championship?
It should have been the Yankees, not the Red Sox, who played in the World Series.
I can prove it.
During the seven games of their league championship, the Yankees scored a total of 45 runs. The Red Sox scored only 41 runs.
Therefore, the Yankees really won.
After all, the team that scores the most runs overall should win. Who can possibly argue with that?
(Long pause.)
Perhaps you are thinking: "You nitwit! Winning the World Series is not about adding up the total number of runs. You have to win four out of seven games."
True. You are exactly right. I was just kidding.
And now you also understand why we should keep the Electoral College.
A candidate does not get to be president of the United States simply by scoring the most "runs," that is, by racking up the biggest raw number of popular votes.
A candidate has to win enough states in the Electoral College to prove that he or she deserves to be president of this immense, diverse nation.
Think of each state as its own separate "game" in the series. It doesn't matter what happened in any other game - or state.
For example: In Game 3 of the Yankees-Red Sox series, Mr. Steinbrenner's team scored 19 runs. Boston scored eight.
Did that mean the Yankees started out the next game 11 runs ahead? Absolutely not. The score of the next game started out zero to zero. The Yankees' "extra" runs from the previous game didn't matter.
Likewise, let's say that John Kerry wins by millions of votes in California and New York. Let's also say that President Bush wins by a big margin in Texas.
Well, so what? Those "surplus" votes will have nothing to do with what Florida says, or what Pennsylvania says, or what Ohio says. Each state starts from zero.
This is the most important aspect of the Electoral College. It brings more states into the mix.
The states still matter.
Remember, we wouldn't even be the United States otherwise. What made our nation possible at all was the Great Compromise made between the big and the small states. Population matters - but not entirely.
Every state gets the same number of votes in the Electoral College as it had seats in Congress. So even the smallest state still gets at least three electoral votes (one for its House seat and two for its Senate seats).
Is this system biased toward the small states?
You bet.
Is it possible to elect a president who didn't get the most raw votes?
Sure. It has happened four times, the last time in 2000. But that is no more "wrong" a result than the fact the Red Sox scored fewer overall runs than the Yankees and still won.
Besides, the disadvantages of a direct national election would be staggering.
We would have to switch to a central, national election authority in Washington, D.C., instead of state-by-state, county-by-county control. You think people are worried about rigged elections and recounts now?
We also would have to figure out new rules - do we hold two elections, with a national runoff? Or do we just let the top vote-getter win, even if he got only a fraction of the vote? Would that lead to more Ralph Naders, splitting the electorate?
It seems to me that a lot of people favor or oppose the Electoral College based on short-term advantage. That's a bad idea.
This Tuesday, I am guessing that President Bush will get the bigger overall popular vote. If John Kerry has a chance, it is in the Electoral College - the same institution that worked against the Democrats in 2000, and which many Democrats want to abolish.
Sure, maybe we should reform the "winner-take-all" nature of the college, as Colorado is considering this year. That would nudge the college in the direction of the popular vote, without giving up the role of the states.
But throwing out the whole thing? Only when we change the name of our nation, which at last check remained: United. States.
