Since 1988, only one presidential candidate from the Republicans won with a majority of votes of the electors, was George W. Bush in 2004.
I participated in 5 campaigns, including Bush in 2000, when he received fewer votes than the opponent, but still scored a success. And now I am convinced that the refusal of the electoral College will not only serve the interests of the country, but will be the key to long-term political survival of the Republican party.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan won 44 States received 56% of the votes of white voters. In 2012, MITT Romney lost, despite the fact that the figure was 59%. In 2016, Donald trump won with 57%, but only because the proportion of voters of African Americans decreased for the first time in 2 decades, and those who supported the third party candidate, it became more.
Since 1964, the Republican party increasingly becomes the party of white. In 1956, 39 percent of African Americans supported Dwight Eisenhower, but in 1964, less than 7% voted for Barry Goldwater, opposed the Civil Rights Act. After that, the popularity of the Republicans, these voters never reached past performance.
In addition, in 2004 for Bush 40% were in favor of “Latino”, although in 2008, the share of votes for John McCain was only 31%. At the same time, according to Pew Research, in 2020 the representatives of this minority will be the first leaders in number — their share in the total number of voters will increase from 7% in 2000 to 13%. And all of this suggests that whites are becoming less and focused on them the party is facing a crisis.
With the existence of the electoral College the Republican nominee can, albeit with more difficulty, to become President without significant support from non-whites. But if the structure is to be abolished, the party will have to evolve or disappear from the political map. She will need to develop a long-term strategy to improve its results, that is, to win the sympathy of ethnic minorities. And the fact that trump got 3 million votes less, should be a serious warning. After all, most quickly reduced the number of white voters without a College education — if 1980 they accounted for 70% of the total, in 2016-44% only. This is the core constituency of the trump.
Is not tenable the assertion that the elimination of the electoral College will lead to the fact that candidates will start to visit only major cities. In States such as California and Florida they have to be everywhere. And it is characteristic that in the struggle for a seat in the U.S. Senate, Democrat Beto O’rourke visited all 254 counties of Texas, despite the fact that 84% of Missourians live in cities. Exactly so should do a politician, counting on success.
In addition, the electoral College began its operation as planned. Its only meaning is that it gives you the opportunity to win to someone who does not enjoy majority support of voters. And if this system was really effective, it probably would be implemented at the level of States, at least in the most densely populated, but this did not happen.
Despite the fact that the United States has made great efforts to implement the concept of “1 man 1 vote” in 2016 ignoring the opinions of 3 million voters. At all other elections the winner is the one who support the most. And this principle should guide and determine who will be the new President. The Republican party will benefit if you find yourself in conditions where will be forced to nominate candidates who could win the most votes. And the winner should be the one who will really receive more substantial support.
Stuart Stevens, the political strategist of the Republican party