Popular

Last week on The Tonight Show, Jay Leno said his biggest fear for the election was one candidate winning the popular vote and the other the electoral vote. I don't see why this should worry anyone.

If you took a vote the week before the election, or the week after, the percentages would change, perhaps in favor of the losing candidate in a close race. The way the system works is whoever wins on the day of the election according to the rules becomes President, and this doesn't have to mean the preferences of the majority or even the plurality win out. Even then, once the President takes office, it's not unusual for his approval to dip below 50%, but that's not a crisis in democracy, that's just the way it goes.

And lately our elections have been close. Bill Clinton won twice without ever getting a majority. Imagine if someone wins the popular vote, say, 49% to 48%--no matter which candidate takes office, both are fairly popular, but neither represents the will of the majority. Is it that big a deal that one candidate hopes to win over the 52% who didn't vote for him rather than the 51%? What if one of the candidates had to win over 48% of the voters rather than 51%? A dictatorship where the will of the majority is ignored on a regular basis is horrendous, but a democracy where both political parties represent a large chunk of the populace, and neither wins all the time, isn't anything to be frightened of. (And a parliamentary system where no single party represents the will of the public so a coalition government must be formed also means you win some, you lose some.)

And everyone knows going in the Electoral College decides. A common analogy is tennis. Imagine you take a match 6-4, 0-6, 6-4. If you add up the games, your opponent beat you 14-12, but no one is outraged that you won, or thinks that means the rules should change.

Furthermore, the candidates strategize around the rules. If the outcome were based purely on vote totals, you'd see McCain in California or New York or New England a lot more, while Obama would spend more time in Texas and the deep South. If that happened, who knows what the final tally would be?

Ultimately, if someone does win the Presidency without winning the vote, I kinda like it. It means he won't believe he has a mandate, and maybe will be a little more cautious in trying to enact his agenda.