Poll: Americans Want to Scrap World Series

2011/10/27
By

Warning: satire ahead! (For the basics on what the National Popular Vote anti-Electoral College scheme is all about, check out this post.)  -TE

A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer to scrap the World Series. A shocking 68% of Americans instead believe that Major League Baseball should rely upon “total runs scored” during the regular baseball season when deciding who should be crowned the MLB champion. This number is a sharp rise from polls taken a decade ago, but still falls slightly behind the 72% majority that preferred change in 1960. In that year, the Yankees scored a record 55 runs against the Pittsburgh Pirates, but still lost the Series.

Joe Ball, President of FairBaseball, explained the sentiment driving the call for change: “The World Series is fundamentally unfair! One team can score a majority of runs during the course of seven games, yet still lose the championship. Every run should be equal, whether it was obtained in Game 3 or Game 6 of the series. A team should not be able to win the championship simply because it won 4 out of 7 games.”

Ball concluded, “One time in American history the team scoring the most runs failed to win the championship. Outrageously, the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates won the World Series despite scoring only 27 runs to the Yankees’ 55. Moreover, crisis has been narrowly avoided on several other occasions. We must act now before another baseball team is stripped of victory, despite its demonstrated ability to score more runs than its opponent.”

Supporters of the World Series note that the 7-game series was created decades ago because the founders of MLB knew that important principles would be served by such a structure. They wanted to identify the most well-rounded team: Champions should be able to do well in a variety of circumstances; they should not do well only when a particular hitter is matched against a particular pitcher or only when the team is playing in a certain type of stadium. Sam Homer, president of Save Baseball, explained: “MLB should not crown a team as champion simply because it was able to win a few lopsided victories. If we eliminate the World Series, championships could be won by a team that lost the vast majority of its games but racked up dozens of runs when its best player was able to hit home runs on his own home turf.”

Homer concluded that baseball fans should keep the World Series for the same reason that Americans rely upon the Electoral College during presidential elections. Both were created with the same goal in mind: Just as MLB seeks the most well-rounded team for its champion, so the Electoral College awards the presidency to the most well-rounded candidate. The nation’s Founders wanted to ensure that the President would not simply represent big states and urban areas. Instead, a winning candidate should appeal to a variety of states, cities and regions. Our uniquely big and diverse country deserves its unique presidential election system. After all, this system must identify the candidate best suited to represent a cross-section of Americans.

Original post appears on Tara Ross’s Facebook page: http://on.fb.me/rVfxst

Share

Tags: , , , ,

18 Responses to Poll: Americans Want to Scrap World Series

  1. jimmy moore on 2011/12/30 at 4:51 PM

    These people are nuts leave the world series just the way it is sounds like the political correctness idiots are trying to ruin tradional baseball and i dont believe your stupid poll either it must have been the way the question was framed to get the result they wanted.

  2. Barry on 2011/12/30 at 4:59 PM

    Jimmy, this is an allegory explaining why the electoral college is preferable to the popular vote.

  3. Izzy on 2011/12/30 at 5:16 PM

    (facepalm)… nice first post. And we wonder what's wrong with the country today… If folks would get their heads out of their favorite ball players a$$ and pay attention to this little thing called REAL LIFE, maybe we wouldn't have the runaway government that we have today!

    • julie on 2011/12/30 at 5:22 PM

      No kidding! Let's watch "Dancing with the Stars", I'm so tired of the news. Or "American Idol" or reruns of "This Old House". No way do I want to be bothered with keeping our country free and constitutionally sound. Too much trouble.

      • Shay on 2011/12/30 at 6:09 PM

        isnt that just the saddest thing about where we are?

  4. Shay on 2011/12/30 at 5:24 PM

    Ok, 1st of all – this is an honest question, not sarcasm. Im just a 50 yr old woman who loves baseball and this country and I dont understand the above article and how this would be bad. I LOVE having a world series, however I can see how 1 team having more runs or winning more games being beaten by a team with many fewer would feel cheated. Also I dont see what would be bad or wrong with a Presidential Candidate being elected President by getting the most votes from a system that did away with the EC and simply counted the votes of every American who chose to vote. Of course I understand a small # of ppl vote and we would have to clear up this cheating issue… but why not simply decide by actual votes? I would love to hear the cons of that bc I dont see it being bad.

    • Chelle on 2011/12/30 at 5:50 PM

      The reason we have the electoral college is to make sure that the votes in rural states actually count. Without it, the city votes would overwhelm the elections.

  5. A Simple Mind on 2011/12/30 at 5:27 PM

    Can you structure a sentence? Just asking…

  6. Plain Old American on 2011/12/30 at 5:50 PM

    Shay, if the electoral college was removed and the president was elected based only upon winning the popular vote then only three states would have any say at all in who would ascend to that office. California, New York and Texas would pretty much own the federal government and could write law that benefited them at the expense of the other 54, er, 47 states.

  7. RickB on 2011/12/30 at 5:52 PM

    Folks, we don't have a democratic form of government. We have a representative republic. . . Let's look at it another way, Shay. Suppose there was only 11 people left in the world – six men and five women. In your world, the six men could vote to make rape legal. That's what you're advocating. . . Why even have a World Series. Just take the team who scored the most runs during the season and crown them champions. With that premise, Thomas Dewey should have been president – not Harry Truman. . .

    • Guest on 2011/12/30 at 7:40 PM

      We are voting on a president.. not voting in laws… makes no difference which state the vote came from.. one vote per legal citizen Guest

  8. Shay on 2011/12/30 at 6:08 PM

    Rick, thanks – that makes sense. So yall are saying Ca, Tx, and NY have more people in their states than say Maine, so Maine wouldnt necessarily be able to be represented as a state in their needs. But if we ran gov't the way its constitutional and the feds only took care of keeping America safe, building roads and settling Supreme Court issues wouldnt having States rule states take care of that? If you agreed with the mindset in Maine you can live in Maine. If you agreed with the mindset in Wyoming you can choose to live there. I know living as the Constitution intended is something we'd have to get back to but if we were able to, wouldnt that make that system work? I do understand now why we cant do that now (thanks Rick for that analogy).

  9. Joel L on 2011/12/30 at 7:13 PM

    I do not agree on scrapping the World Series But I am an advocate of scrapping and burning the Electoral College. The reason for the Electoral College establishment was communication, it took months to send word from one end of the country to the other. It made sense then to have delegates gathered together in one spot to nominate and elect our president. But that means now we do not elect the president…no that means we elect a delegate who then votes for the candidate. This is an outdated method since communication is now instantaneous. I say scrap the electoral college…I would like to actually vote for the president one time.

    • Trent on 2011/12/30 at 8:53 PM

      You're simply wrong about the reasons for the Electoral College. Really, who told you those things? Can you cite sources? Please, don't simply believe what some high school teacher rattled off one day … look into it yourself.

    • GUEST on 2011/12/30 at 8:54 PM

      Joel. Although your argument is logical and has some truth. Read the federal papers of thomas and others. The college was created specifically to ensure a REPRESENTATIVE republic not a pure democracy. It was imperative to the founding fathers that a few large cities/states did not have full representation at the loss of the smaller states. EC is an excellent source of balance and helps eliminate Chavez from Venezuala, or Castro type of government here.

  10. Wrightclick on 2011/12/30 at 9:54 PM

    The Founding Fathers came up with the Electoral College to ensure the less populated states would be treated fairly. There were only 13 states at the time and several of them would never have signed on to a 'simple majority rules' government. If you were Georgia would you want New York to control the Federal government?

    Today with 50 states (never mind what Obama tries to tell you) if you look at a red/blue voting map you can see the cities are the majority of blue (Democrat) and the 'fly over country' is the massive red area. National voting in the last three elections have been virtually 50-50. Without the Electoral College those in the Red States might as well stay home. Of course that's what the Democrats want, so naturally they're all for eliminating the EC.

    We must not let that happen or our Democratic Republic, the great American experiment in Self Rule will be lost and we will be right back to square one with a majority ruler-takes-all leader. Is that what you want. Really?

  11. Guest on 2011/12/30 at 10:02 PM

    The Electoral College leverages your vote. In 2008 125,181,481 people across the country voted. In a popular vote system that means your single vote had the weight of 1/125,181,481. I live in Pa. In 2008 5,932,248 votes were cast in my state so my vote had the weight of 1/5,935,548 which is a lot better already. But wait, there's more! Pa had 21 of the 538 electoral votes on offer so my one vote could affect nearly 4% of the available votes for my candidate! Now that's a reason to get up off your ass and vote. The popular vote method is the equivalent of adding one grain of sand to a 22 gallon barrel. Might as way stay home and drink another beer.

  12. Cliff on 2011/12/30 at 10:38 PM

    It used to be that the people did not elect the senators. They were appointed by the state governments to serve. Those in the House of Representatives were voted for directly by the people. I say return to that way and keep the electoral college.

Why Save our States?

The genius of the United States of America: we are both United and States. The American system of states is Federalism. One part of it is the Electoral College, the state-by-state way we elect the President of the United States.

Some 'reformers' want to unravel our system of states. The Freedom Foundation’s Save Our States Project is dedicated to preserving these structures for the sake of liberty. Find out more and join us.