Like the 1962 World Series -- when the New York Yankees, despite scoring fewer runs in the series as a whole, defeated the San Francisco Giants in game seven -- this year's presidential election has caused a conundrum. "The popular vote is a measure of runs scored," explained Communications Professor David Eisenhower last night in a PennForum panel discussion in Vance Hall, pointing out that what matters is the number of games won -- the number of Electoral College votes. The forum, "The Electoral College: Should it be maintained or abolished?" spotlighted four panelists -- three professors and one student -- and was attended by roughly two dozen students and faculty members. Eisenhower was joined by History Professor Michael Zuckerman, who also supports the Electoral College, and two critics of the idea -- Daily Pennsylvanian Executive Editor Binyamin Appelbaum and Villanova Political Science Professor David Barrett. While the election saga proceeded in Florida, the panelists came together to shed light on the controversy the Electoral College engenders. Should George W. Bush pick up Florida's 25 electoral votes, he will be the fourth president in history to win the election without the popular vote. "We were trying to find a way that connected the current dilemma with the larger issues of representation and legitimacy," said Jed Gross, PennForum's Rapid Response coordinator and a College junior. And while the panel was split down the middle, the panelists presented "four individual opinions," said moderator Eric Lomazoff, a College senior. Panelists made opening statements, defended their opinions, responded to other panelists and entertained questions from the audience. "Let me be blunt," Barrett began. "I think the Electoral College should be abolished." He argued that fairness should allow the candidate with the most popular votes to become president. Under the current system, he contended, the votes of citizens with views opposing the rest of their state are marginalized -- for instance, a conservative vote in liberal Massachussetts would not make a difference. Appelbaum emphasized the unfairness of the weighted system of the Electoral College. "A vote is worth one-third as much in California as in Alaska," he said, explaining that individuals in states with small populations have a disproportionately large say in the election. Zuckerman maintained that the Electoral College isn't terribly important, but added that it is a way to prevent smaller states from getting left out of the election process. "Figuring out how to win Michigan is a totally different problem from winning Tennessee," he said. Eisenhower said that, without the Electoral College, recounts in a close election would have to be done on a national level. The system, according to Eisenhower, localized the problem in Florida and "will produce a legal president who has a chance to become the popular president." Audience members found the event interesting and in good taste. "I thought it was great," College senior Erin Murphy said. Everyone "spoke well and even the ones I disagreed with raised great points."
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
