November 30, 2016

The Electoral College explained via the 1960 World Series

While listening to Rush Limbaugh help a mother explain the fairness of the Electoral College to her voting daughter today, I came up with this simple analogy that might help others to make the same argument.

Here's what I wrote to Mr. Limbaugh:


Hearing you talk about the Electoral College vote and how it relates to protecting smaller states (from the time of the ratification of the Constitution) jogged my memory concerning a baseball analogy from my childhood - and a bet made by two of my junior high school chums.

When the 1960 World Series (NY Yankees vs. Pittsburgh Pirates) was about to begin, one kid I knew placed a clever bet on who would score the most runs, no matter which team won four World Series games. The Yankees were major power hitters with Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Yogi Berra, etc., and they were, indeed a lock to score more runs. In fact, even though the Yankees lost the Series in seven games thanks to Bill Mazoroski's famous home run, they still scored 28 more runs overall. This was thanks to games the Yankees won by scores of 16-3, 10-0 and 12-0. But the Yankees still did not deserve to win the Series.

Just as it would have been unfair to have the Yankees count their surplus winning runs in the previous or next Series game (analagous to the next U.S. state or multiple states), it is unfair and unjust to allow allow big states such as California or New York or Massachusetts to totally overwhelm the vote totals and political power of every other state in a Presidential Election. This is why there is a Union of many states and why even smaller states have two U.S. Senators. In fact, you can surprise many young people by telling them that there once was a major league baseball team called the Senators.

This is not the most profound of analogies but perhaps it is one of the most easy to understand ones, especially when talking to young people. Why would over forty other states want to be in a Union with a five or so states that could, because of their large populations, decide the Presidency every four years all by themselves, totally indifferent to the wishes of the smaller states?

I hope this example can aid somewhat in explaining the fairness of protecting the rights of population minorities in other states. The Democrat Party is all about protecting the rights of minorities - until such time as those minorities don't vote for Democrats.

Jack Kemp
former American Thinker contributor
Birdnow Aviary East Coast Editor   

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 447 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Good job, Jack. For the terminally sports-minded, it might have been good had you included the scores of the other games. But with the power of the Internet, sports junkies can, if necessary, research those other games easily enough.

Practically before the initial yelling was done after Election Day, a friend of mine was on my case about "isn't it time to get rid of the Electoral College?" I replied, in my typical Wise Old Man manner, "Be careful what you wish for. One of these days in the hopefully distant future, a Democratic president may be elected again, because of the EC system, and you wouldn't want to miss that, would you, just because you had thrown the Electoral College into the dumpster?"

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at December 01, 2016 10:39 AM (L2iAj)

2 The Electoral College explained via the 1960 World Series and all about the birds. This is actually a basic idea for reviews development but people wil;l; take interest in it. I am sure this is a best blog.

Posted by: Kelmwse at October 19, 2018 10:43 PM (6OYLW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What colour is a green orange?

17kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.1897 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1804 seconds, 101 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.