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outdated as it has Florida, a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.