Dropping Out of College

Dropping Out of College

We need to abolish the Electoral College permanently, even if way too many people are late to the party.

By now, this election has descended into Mel Brooks territory, with Springtime for Hitler becoming the worst's unlikeliest success despite all the inherent ugliness and shadiness that went into its creation (we haven't reached the point where the co-conspirators will end up in jail; time will tell). And though the areas of post-election debate are many, one that has shone through is the call for the abolition of the Electoral College.

It's not hard to see why: vote tallies now show Hillary Clinton leading by more than 2 million votes over Donald Trump, yet that won't change the Electoral College map with Trump winning over 300 of the 538 votes available. The reason being, these votes increasing Clinton's lead are coming from California, a state which has been blue since 1992 and also contains over 10% of the country's electoral votes and population.

But because Clinton lost, the call for the Electoral College to be abolished has been renewed, going as far as outgoing California Senator Barbara Boxer introducing legislation to do just that. If the entire reason for this is because of Clinton losing (and perhaps reviving traumatic memories of the Bush/Gore election), then allow myself to turn into Bart Simpson from the first Simpsons episode.

The truth is, the Electoral College has been terrible from the beginning, and the anger at it now from people wounded by this election (and the 2000 election) needs to be scrutinized. Apart from its racist history, it's also simply an awful way to elect the head of the executive branch. Such dissonance between the popular vote and the Electoral College happened with certainty a few times in the 19th century, but I guess we thought we papered over those problems. Generally, both systems have coincided with each other, and not once have they parted in the 20th century; some, like 1972 and 1984, were such blowouts in both (though the Electoral College was wildly disproportionate to the popular vote in both cases), that no one can say they were close. Some, however, were startlingly close in the popular vote; take the examples of 1960 (though there are some fascinating facets to it) and 1968.

However, there's evidence that we're clearly divided in regards to the electoral map recently. California, as big as it is, is now thoroughly Democratic on the federal level, just like Texas is with being thoroughly Republican. Since 2000, the map of the states has been pretty set (until this year, anyway). I shouldn't have to tell you why this is a problem, but here's an explanation why it is.

Perhaps the best reason to get rid of the Electoral College? We wouldn't be stuck with the heart-killing drama of the hanging CHADs or this recent nugget of news (though there's been some dissent). But it would also help mitigate the effects of the Voter ID laws that have proliferated, especially after the Shelby County v. Holder decision. However, it's time to finally say that Democrats dropped the ball on this considering that there are ways around Voter ID laws, such as providing everyone with an ID as shown by other countries or establishing a voting-by-mail system which a few states have already passed.

So, what do we do? Since abolishing the Electoral College would require changing the Constitution, a new amendment would need to pass, which is unlikely to happen. There's a movement to change to the popular vote, so we'll where that goes. Personally, there are systems that I find much more preferable when it comes to government and how we elect and vote, but that's just me.

However, it's obvious what must not happen: What's happening now with the specter of recounts. The fact that Jill Stein is leading this effort (and here's just one example of Stein's intense dislike of Clinton) is bizarre enough. However, even if there's substantial wrongdoing, the real reason that this is a horrible decision is because of what could happen. The people committing hate crimes are emboldened enough. We obviously need to combat our new reality, but we need to remember what some people were prepared to do before the election ended. And lest we forget, this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about. I (and here's just one other voice) aren't shedding tears over the fate of the Clintons. There's at least one opinion about who the Electoral College should vote for, but this time, such actions are foolish. Trump is horrible; there's no denying that. But are we prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions? (On a separate note: I recently watched Clinton's breakthrough moment in 2008 when she spoke in New Hampshire, and that was a genuinely good moment. Too bad 2016 saw, to use just one example, this version of Clinton.)

This whole insipid affair with the 2016 election is doing the American people a massive injustice. To put this into context, Gallup has shown that for years, the majority of people don't want the Electoral College. So let's get rid of it, but let's do it with earnest.

Cover Image Credit: The New York Times Upfront/Scholastic.com

Popular Right Now

To The Girl Struggling With Her Body Image

It's not about the size of your jeans, but the size of your heart, soul, and spirit.


To the girl struggling with her body image,

You are more than the number on the scale. You are more than the number on your jeans and dresses. You are way more than the number of pounds you've gained or lost in whatever amount of time.

Weight is defined as the quantity of matter contained by a body or object. Weight does not define your self-worth, ambition or potential.

So many girls strive for validation through the various numbers associated with body image and it's really so sad seeing such beautiful, incredible women become discouraged over a few numbers that don't measure anything of true significance.

Yes, it is important to live a healthy lifestyle. Yes, it is important to take care of yourself. However, taking care of yourself includes your mental health as well. Neglecting either your mental or physical health will inflict problems on the other. It's very easy to get caught up in the idea that you're too heavy or too thin, which results in you possibly mistreating your body in some way.

Your body is your special, beautiful temple. It harbors all of your thoughts, feelings, characteristics, and ideas. Without it, you wouldn't be you. If you so wish to change it in a healthy way, then, by all means, go ahead. With that being said, don't make changes to impress or please someone else. You are the only person who is in charge of your body. No one else has the right to tell you whether or not your body is good enough. If you don't satisfy their standards, then you don't need that sort of negative influence in your life. That sort of manipulation and control is extremely unhealthy in its own regard.

Do not hold back on things you love or want to do because of how you interpret your body. You are enough. You are more than enough. You are more than your exterior. You are your inner being, your spirit. A smile and confidence are the most beautiful things you can wear.

It's not about the size of your jeans. It's about the size of your mind and heart. Embrace your body, observe and adore every curve, bone and stretch mark. Wear what makes you feel happy and comfortable in your own skin. Do your hair and makeup (or don't do either) to your heart's desire. Wear the crop top you've been eyeing up in that store window. Want a bikini body? Put a bikini on your body, simple.

So, as hard as it may seem sometimes, understand that the number on the scale doesn't measure the amount or significance of your contributions to this world. Just because that dress doesn't fit you like you had hoped doesn't mean that you're any less of a person.

Love your body, and your body will love you right back.

Cover Image Credit: Lauren Margliotti

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

I Am Pro-Life, And I Am Tired Of Being Attacked For My Opinion

I am pro-life from a secular and logical standpoint.


We live in a country based on free speech, so why are pro-lifers verbally and physically attacked for merely their stance on a controversial topic? Why is Instagram censoring pro-life voices? Social media users should be given both sides of the argument, then allowed to make an informed decision, but by showing them only pro-choice content, their opinion will be biased.

Harmless pro-life posts are being shadow-banned from popular hashtags, lowering reach and engagement. There is a problem when non-violent, non-hateful posts showcasing people holding up signs that say, "Voices for the Voiceless", are censored.

Why are pro-choicers allowed to share their opinions on social media and be praised, while pro-lifers lose followers for sharing a pro-life post? It is vital that people have different opinions, and shunning pro-lifers encourages homogeneity of political opinions. Pro-lifers should not lose friends. Pro-lifers should not be attacked. Pro-lifers should not be scared of speaking up for what they believe is right.

I am pro-life, but I respect everyone's opinion. Instead of shunning the opposite side, I try to hear them out and understand where they are coming from.

Instead of dismissing pro-lifers as being old white men trying to control women's bodies, why not hear them out and try to understand the reasoning behind their opinions?

I used to be neutral on the topic of abortion, until a month ago, when I saw something that completely changed my perspective. It was around the time Governor Kemp signed the fetal heartbeat bill in Georgia, and it was a hot topic, so I decided to do some research. I came across a sight called "Priests For Life". "Oh great", I thought, "This site is going to impose its Christian views of abortion on everyone." Once on the site, I clicked on a tab titled, "America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America Sees Abortion."

I clicked on the gallery, and was confronted with the cold hard truth. View the gallery with extreme caution, because the images/videos are VERY graphic.

From this site, I also discovered that planned parenthood harvests and sells the body parts of aborted babies. Keep in mind, Planned Parenthood, providing 1/3 of abortions in America, receives $500 million dollars yearly from taxpayers. Having taxpayers' money going toward reforming foster care would be a better idea in my opinion.

The Declaration of Independence states, "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The difference in opinion on whether the law should protect unborn children is a major factor that divides the pro-life and pro-choice movements.

In my humble opinion, I believe an unborn child should be protected by the law once a heartbeat is detected. We cannot dehumanize unborn children with euphemisms such as "clump of cells" or "potential life". We were all once "a clump of cells", and we still are. Can you name one non-living thing with a heartbeat? There is none.

The level of development of a human does not detract from his/her rights. All lives matter!

The most common pro-choice argument is "My body my choice." Yes, your body your choice, but when it's not your body, it's not your choice. The baby has its own unique set of DNA, its own organs, its own limbs, brain activity and a heartbeat. Just because a woman carries a baby does not give her a right to end his/her life.

Some may say the fetus cannot survive on its own, but a 1 month infant cannot either. A one month old infant depends on the care of a mother or guardian, and if it were to be left without food or water, it would not be able to fend for itself. Someone on life support cannot survive without the incubator. Elderly people with dementia depend on the care of staff in senior centers for survival.

The parasite argument is also a common one. Basic biology can refute this one. An unborn child in the womb is not a parasite, because for it to be a parasite it would have to be a different species than the mother, which would cause an adverse immune response.

"Everyone has the right to choose," is found on almost every pro-choice protest sign, and yes I agree. You have the right to choose to do whatever you want, but the second your actions harm another human's rights, a line must be drawn.

A women's right to choose ends when her baby's right to life begins.

Another common argument that is condescending towards pro-lifers is that they are pro-birth but not pro-life. Tell that to the thousands of pro-lifers adopting multiple children, giving them the best possible life. Tell that to the people outside of planned parenthood with signs that say "I will take your baby." Tell that to the numerous churches helping pregnant women. Tell that to the government who is giving single mothers tax breaks, food stamps and countless other resources.

The foster system may be flawed, but that is not justify ending the life of a child. More than 18,000 American families successfully adopt newborn babies in the United States every year.

Regardless, suffering is inevitable; you cannot end a child's life because he/she will live a difficult life. Instead, legislation should be passed to improve the foster care system and the adoption process. When a child is not aborted there is always hope, a chance, a possibility.

Some "pro-lifers" say, "I am pro-life for my body, but pro-choice for everyone else". This reasoning fails in many ways. You never hear anyone say, "I would never abuse my child, but I would never take away a parent's choice of if they want to abuse their child or not". Being pro-life means advocating for the defenseless, which means every single child, not just your own.

Women can do whatever they want with their lives, as long as their actions do not end the heartbeat of another human being.

All over social media, you see people sharing posts that say the women will be sentenced to 99 years of jail for having an abortion and 30 years for a miscarriage, but this is false. Often celebrities are the ones using their platforms to share these false statements. People should also fact-check the things they see on Instagram before believing them.

One line all pro-choicers say is "No uterus, no opinion". Let's not forget the people who made abortion legal were old, white men. This line is hypocrisy at its finest. If the line was "No prostate, no opinion", World War III would break out.

Most people are outraged by the fact that majority of the politicians who signed the heartbeat bill in Georgia were men, but let us not forget that Georgia residents vote for these representatives knowing the policies they advocate for. Around 40% of Americans are pro-life, and around 40% of women are pro-life, but these percentages are significantly greater in Conservative states, which explains the election of conservative representatives in Georgia and Alabama.

Pro-choicers often paint an image of pro-lifers as men who want to control the bodies of women, but that could not be any further from the truth. Abortion allows men to use women and not be held responsible for the consequences. Banning abortion teaches men responsibility and loyalty.

The purpose of the pro-life movement is not to control a woman's body but rather grant an innocent, unborn child the fundamental right to life.

Regardless of my pro-life stance, I do believe abortion should be allowed in RARE cases; for example, when the mother's health is in danger.

I agree these anti-abortion bills put a lot of stress on the mother, so I am all for increasing the involvement of the father. Whether it be increasing the amount and frequency of child support payments or making the father co-parent, it takes two to create a child, so the father should pull his weight.

Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. once said, "Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate."

This article is not meant to shun anyone who has had an abortion or is pro-choice. I respect your stance 100 percent. The purpose of this article is to address the social media bias towards liberal views of abortion and the stigma of leaning toward the right on abortion. There is no one right answer to this debate. It is not always black and white; that is why the abortion debate has been going on for decades.

Related Content

Facebook Comments