C

riticism 
against 
the 
Electoral 
College 
has 
been 
mounting 
for decades. However, it has 
become a talking point for 
major presidential candidates 
after a 2000 and 2016 disparity 
between the popular vote and 
electoral 
majority 
collected. 
Many 
Democratic 
hopefuls 
including Mayor Pete Buttigieg 
of South Bend, Ind., Sen. Amy 
Klobuchar, D-Minn., Sen. Bernie 
Sanders, I-Vt. and Sen. Elizabeth 
Warren, D-Mass., have spoken 
out in support of a popular vote 
system, but candidates former 
Vice President Joe Biden and 
former Mayor of New York Mike 
Bloomberg have voiced concerns 
about the abolishment of the 
current system. The narrative 
around the Electoral College 
is frequently about how much 
power individuals in small states 
have. This narrative must shift 
to a voter power index weighing 
how much power someone in a 
“battleground state” has over 
every other voter.
The 
term 
“voter 
power 
index” is how likely your vote 
is to sway the overall electoral 
vote in a presidential election. 
The mathematical calculation 
is coined as the Banzhaf Power 
Index, which allows groups 
to 
determine 
which 
states 
are crucial to the success of 
a candidate aiming for the 
presidency. By using a voter 
power index, we shift from the 
narrative of small states having 
all the power under the current 
electoral system to the idea that 
a select group of individuals and 
states hold all the power. The 
states responsible for deciding 
elections, a group of tossups, 
can be defined as the 13 that do 
not have uniform party support 
in the past four presidential 
elections.
The 
traditional 
measure 
of electoral power relies on 
the number of constituents 
per representative there are 
in each state, but the sparsely 
populated 
states 
never 
end 
up deciding elections. While 

it 
is 
true 
that 
Wyoming 
has the smallest number of 
constituents per electoral vote, 
the state is considered one of 
the most reliable for Republican 
candidates and has not voted for 
a Democratic candidate since 
1964. The same is true on the 
Democratic side with Vermont 
and the District of Columbia, 
which have been deemed two 
of the most reliably Democratic 
voting blocs. This model of 
understanding the downfalls 
of 
the 
electoral 
college 
is 
outdated as it has Florida, a 
state considered a consistent 
battleground 
state 
that 
frequently 
decides 
elections, 
ranked 
as 
the 
50th 
most 
powerful state. These seemingly 
over-powerful small states have 
monolithic 
political 
support 
making their votes count even 
less under the system that 
is meant to ensure the equal 
nature of their vote. 
In the 2016 election, the 
“battleground” 
states 
were 
home to 94 percent of general 
election campaign events, which 
in turn allows for candidates 
to build messages to appeal 
to narrow coalitions within 
traditionally indecisive states. 
This disparity in campaigning 
played out across the board as 
the smallest nine states with 
high electoral power received 
zero combined visits while 
California, Texas and New York 
received a combined two visits. 
The current system protects 
only those states deemed swing 
states, neglecting the states 
it was originally meant to 
protect, as well as those that 
make up the largest portion 
of the nation. Voter power is 
determined by how much a 
presidential 
candidate 
must 
pay attention to your state, 
rather than allowing for all 
votes to be considered equal 
and forcing a sweeping message 
from candidates. 
The 
current 
system 
requires 
a 
constitutional 
amendment to abolish the 
Electoral 
College 
process 

and put in place a popular 
vote. Passing an amendment 
is virtually impossible as it 
requires two-thirds of the 
House and Senate, as well as 
three-fourths of the states. 
While 
65% 
of 
Americans 
support a popular vote, a 
divided government proves 
to be a hurdle we cannot 
overcome at this time. 
In 
the 
meantime, 
the 
importance of having your 
voice heard takes precedent 
and 
the 
flawed 
system 
works in favor of University 
students 
and 
Michigan 
residents. Behind Michigan, 
most students attending the 
University of Michigan are 
from 
New 
York, 
Illinois, 
California and New Jersey, 
all 
reliably 
Democratic 
states 
with 
low 
voter 
power indices. In contrast, 
Michigan is within the top 
most influential states in 
the 
upcoming 
presidential 
election. University students 
have the option to re-register 
to 
vote 
in 
the 
state 
of 
Michigan as they reside in 
the state for the majority of 
the year. 
While the system is deeply 
flawed, 
working 
against 
the states and constituents 
it’s intended to protect, the 
U-M student voice is more 
important than ever with 
one of the nation’s highest 
voter power indexes at our 
fingertips. The 2020 election 
will prove to be a tipping 
point in deciding the future 
of our country that directly 
impacts University students 
with lasting effects that will 
outlive most of the voting 
population. With an increased 
amount of voting power and 
the largest voting bloc, it is 
imperative for U-M students 
to register to vote, remain 
educated and take to the polls 
in upcoming primaries and 
the general election.

A 

new 
carbon 
tax 
has 
the 
possibility 
of 
revolutionizing 
our 
push toward carbon neutrality 
by 2050, but it isn’t from the 
progressive playbook, it’s from 
the Republican Party. Despite 
decades of proposed climate 
legislation 
from 
Democrats, 
Republican stonewall opposition 
has limited progress toward 
cleaner 
energy. 
Not 
only 
could this new carbon tax be 
revolutionary, 
it 
could 
also 
be an indication of a renewed 
Republican Party, one more 
willing to contribute to climate 
policy in the future.
Energy 
markets 
are 
commodity 
markets 
— 
they 
follow supply and demand. As 
any good consumer would in 
any commodity market, average 
Americans want to pay the lowest 
price for gas and their monthly 
electric bill. As such, there is 
demand in the energy market for 
low costs that is satisfied by the 
cheapest energy sources: fossil 
fuels. Yes, they are cheap, but 
they’re also polluting the earth, 
leading to the catastrophic events 
of the climate crisis. Market 
forces alone will keep the energy 
sector and the planet on the 
same current trajectory: private 
profit and collective human 
suffering. However, a carbon tax 
could reorient the priorities of 
the energy sector by providing 
an incentive for cleaner energy. 
The leading concepts of a carbon 
tax involve a tax that would be 
collected primarily from the 
producers 
and 
importers 
of 
fossil fuels. Coal would be taxed 
at the mine, natural gas at the 
processing plant, petroleum at 
the refinery and imported fuel 
at the border. The tax would 
be based on the carbon content 
of the fuel, and the rate would 
increase over time. A carbon tax 
would incentivize companies 
to pollute less, and the market 
would trend toward cleaner 
energy. 
However, a carbon tax has 
yet to be implemented in the 
United States because of the 
preoccupation with the harsh 
economic effects on consumers, 
especially those with lower 
income. Whenever the costs of 
production increase, a company 
will 
charge 
the 
consumer 
more, and that’s exactly what 
would happen with a carbon 
tax. A carbon tax makes energy 
production more expensive for 
the fossil fuel industry, and they 
would offset that cost increase 
by charging more for their 

product. The cost of filling your 
car with gas and paying your 
bills at the end of the month 
would 
increase. 
When 
the 
French government attempted 
to impose a carbon tax on their 
population, there were mass 
protests lasting for months. 
Dubbed 
the 
“Yellow 
Vest 
Movement,” French citizens took 
to the streets in the hundreds of 
thousands to protest the carbon 
tax. Wealthier people aren’t as 
preoccupied with a carbon tax 
since they can afford it, but those 
who are less affluent are much 
more affected as they have to 
spend a larger percent of their 
income than wealthier people.
A 
new 
plan, 
however, 
effectively 
implements 
a 
carbon tax without leaving a 
heavy financial burden on the 
consumers. The Conservative 
Case 
for 
Carbon 
Dividends, 
conceived of by the Climate 
Leadership Council, describes, 

“All proceeds from a nation’s 
carbon fee would be divided 
equally among its citizens, and 
returned to all adults through 
a 
quarterly 
dividend 
check 
automatically deposited in their 
bank accounts.” In other words, 
the government wouldn’t collect 
the taxes, the money would 
go directly into the pockets of 
American citizens to offset the 
increased costs of buying gas and 
turning the lights on. This isn’t 
from Andrew Yang’s playbook. 
It’s a conservative, Republican 
proposal, and it’s a derivation 
of universal basic income. This 
carbon tax proposal is supported 
by a coalition of economists, 
scientists, 
corporations 
and 
leaders 
in 
the 
energy 
industry such as Shell, BP and 
ExxonMobil, and 3,554 U.S. 
economists, many of whom are 
conservative.
A market-based solution is the 
Republican policy of choice on 
most issues, including this new 
and improved position on climate 
change. The conservative case 
for carbon dividends already has 
bipartisan support and promises 

an economic and environmental 
benefit. This isn’t the same 
Republican Party that brought 
snowballs 
onto 
the 
Senate 
floor and vigorously denied the 
existence of climate change for 
decades. The Republican Party 
has an amazing opportunity 
here to accept the reality of 
climate 
change 
and 
grow 
environmental protections while 
sustaining economic growth. In 
comparison to enormous climate 
spending bills, such as the 
Green New Deal, a Republican 
climate stance could create an 
opportunity for the party to 
return to fiscal conservatism 
as well. Meanwhile, without an 
ambitious climate policy, the 
Republican Party risks losing 
younger voters who care about 
climate 
change. 
The 
party 
has everything to gain from 
embracing a conservative idea of 
carbon pricing, taking the lead 
on climate policy in a politically 
viable, 
economically 
and 
environmentally 
sustainable 
manner.
Even so, this isn’t to say that 
Republicans 
are 
champions 
of climate policy. They have 
never been, and they still are 
not. Their climate policy for 
the last 30 years has been 
complete 
denial, 
and 
still 
today a Republican president 
is 
stripping 
environmental 
protections in our national 
lands and pushing for increased 
use of fossil fuels. Whether 
they openly admit it or not, the 
Republican strategy has largely 
remained a strict denial. But the 
Conservative Case for Carbon 
Dividends may be an indication 
of a change in the Republican 
ideology 
that 
might 
prove 
essential for substantial climate 
discussion going forward.
The U.S. is not on the right 
track 
to 
reaching 
carbon 
neutrality by 2050. A one-sided 
approach from the Democrats 
has 
seen 
little 
success 
so 
far 
because 
of 
Republican 
opposition, but a rebirth of 
the Republican Party in terms 
of 
fiscal 
conservatism 
and 
environmental protections could 
be the answer for climate policy 
in the U.S. This conservative 
carbon tax may not be the whole 
answer, but it could be a symptom 
of a renewed discussion about 
climate change in this country, 
and a precursor of Republican 
contribution 
to 
necessary 
climate policy.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White 
Lola Yang

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND 
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

REID DIAMOND | COLUMN

The conservative case for carbon dividends

EMILY ULRICH | COLUMN

Facing inevitable stress in college

An alternative argument against the Electoral College

OWEN STECCO | COLUMN

Owen Stecco can be reached at 

ostecco@umich.edu.

KEVIN MOORE JR. | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT KEVJR@UMICH.EDU

C

ollege can be stressful. 
For any student reading 
this, 
that 
statement 
probably seems obvious. Of 
course we are stressed when we 
have projects due and exams 
to study for while we also try 
to ensure we are making the 
most of our four years at the 
University of Michigan. But 
why are we stressing more 
than older generations did 
when they were in college? 
Mental health disorders in 
adolescents and young adults 
have significantly increased 
within the last 10 years. 
For the current generation of 
college students, stress seems 
inevitable. We are sent into 
college with a weight on our 
backs to come out knowing 
what we want to do for the rest 
of our lives. In reality, only 27 
percent of college grads work 
in a job that is directly related 
to their major. I am a junior 
and have already changed my 
career path at least five times, 
and I can only imagine how 
many more times I will change 
my mind over the course of 
my life. All the extra stress 
that 
accompanies 
worrying 
about the future isn’t worth it. 
Small amounts of stress may 
motivate you to complete daily 
challenges and reach goals, but 
when stress builds up it can 
affect your mental and physical 
health. Common symptoms of 
stress include headache, muscle 
tension, fatigue, irritability, 
stomach upset, sleep problems, 
etc.
A simple way to view stress 
is with the following analogy. 
Imagine there is a volcano 
in the middle of a remote 
island. Villages surround all 
sides of the volcano and it is 
a central part of the island’s 
landscape. Each village on 

the island performs different 
tasks. For example, one village 
grows fruits and vegetables 
to 
maintain 
nutrition 
on 
the 
island, 
another 
village 
constructs comfy beds out of 
the palm leaves to ensure that 
the islanders sleep well and a 
third village plans parties for 
all the islanders to attend. You 
are the volcano, and stress is 
the lava inside. If you don’t take 
care of stressors as they come 
up, they can boil up inside of you 
just like a volcano, until finally 
it erupts and lava spreads 
throughout the villages like 
stress spreading to all the parts 
of your life — from appetite to 
sleep to social interactions. 

How do we take care of 
stress once we identify that 
it is affecting our lives? This 
looks different for everyone 
and it is important to find what 
ways work best for you. Stress 
relievers can include working 
out, meditation, laughing with 
friends or, my personal favorite, 
playing with a pet. 
Most of us don’t have our 
pets at school with us, but all 
of us actually do have access 
to this stress reliever. Every 
Wednesday there is a wellness 
dog 
at 
University 
Health 
Services that students can visit. 
Multiple studies have explored 
the 
relationship 
between 

human -animal interaction and 
stress levels. One study found a 
significant increase in plasma 
oxytocin levels after human 
animal interaction. Oxytocin 
expresses anti-stress effects 
by decreasing stress hormones 
and 
reducing 
stress-related 
parameters such as heart rate 
and blood pressure. 
Another stress reliever we 
have access to is exercise. 
There 
are 
three 
gyms 
on 
campus that have a variety of 
equipment and fitness classes 
available to students. If you are 
not a fan of the gym, there are 
also sports clubs on campus 
and recreational sports teams 
that you can join. Working out 
can reduce stress by decreasing 
adrenaline and cortisol. In 
addition 
to 
reducing 
these 
stress hormones, working out 
increases endorphins which 
can elevate one’s mood. 

Counseling 
and 

Psychological Services at the 
University 
offers 
apps 
for 
guided meditation, along with 
other emotional and mental 
health well-being apps. CAPS 
also provides “Wellness Zones” 
that have massage chairs and 
sun lamps for students to use. 
The Wellness Zone on central 
campus is expected to open in 
the Union after Spring Break. 
Sometimes it would be nice 
to drop everything and travel 
to that remote island with the 
volcano, but realistically, we 
have to meet ourselves where 
we are. Since our generation 
already suffers from increased 
mental 
health 
disorders, 
implementing a plan to reduce 
stress may be more crucial 
for our health than we ever 
thought.

When stress builds 
up it can affect 
your mental and 
physical health.

Emily Ulrich can be reached at 

emulrich@umich.edu.

Reid Diamond can be reached at 

reiddiam@umich.edu.

A market based 
solution is the 
Republican 
policty of choice 
on most issues.

