On (almost) this day in 1960, the Pittsburgh Pirates defeat the New York Yankees to win the World Series. Bill Mazeroski hit a home run in the 9th inning! He clinched the title for the Pirates at the very end of Game 7. So, why on earth am I telling you this story? Believe it or not, the series teaches us something about our Constitution.
Any guesses as to what constitutional point is hiding here?
The Pirates barely eked out their win in Game 7, and they won it only because of that final home run. What a great series, right? The Pirates won 4 of 7 games. We all know that such a showing is sufficient to earn the championship.
But did you realize that, during the course of the series, the Pirates scored only 27 total runs to the Yankees’s 55 runs? Does anyone ever even stop to think about that?
Any baseball fan knows that teams do not win the World Series by scoring the most runs throughout the course of seven games. Instead, teams earn the championship by winning the most games during the series. Naturally, rules *could* be established that would allow the team scoring the most overall runs to win the World Series, but such rules would not accomplish the stated objective of a championship game: Awarding the best overall team the title of champion.
But what if the rules were revised? What if we said that a team could win the World Series by scoring the most runs throughout the course of seven games?
Such a revision might allow a team to win the World Series by having one great game and several really poor games. Maybe a team would rely too heavily on a player who hits well against a particular pitcher. Excellent performances throughout the World Series would not be required to earn the championship. A few, stellar performances could be sufficient. But we want our champions to be more well-rounded than that! We want them to do well in a variety of circumstances. We want them to win at home or away. We want them to persevere over the course of seven intense games.
Isn’t all of this just like the Electoral College? Didn’t the Founders have similar goals in mind as they designed the country’s presidential election system? Presidential candidates must get the most states’ electoral votes, not the most individual votes. The Founders did not want presidential candidates to win simply because they could accumulate high vote totals in a few big states or large cities. They wanted the most well-rounded candidate to win the presidency. The system they created forces candidates to win in a variety of locations nationwide and among many different types of voters.
Funny, isn’t it? It turns out that the 1960 World Series teaches us why the Electoral College is important
-------------
Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2016 by Tara Ross.
Permalink: http://www.taraross.com/2015/10/this-day-in-history-the-world-series-imitates-the-electoral-college/
@stonewall_jackson @ctvols @tcavol @Eyes4Vols @PredVol @DMS-PMS @AZZMAN75
@CavVol
Any guesses as to what constitutional point is hiding here?
The Pirates barely eked out their win in Game 7, and they won it only because of that final home run. What a great series, right? The Pirates won 4 of 7 games. We all know that such a showing is sufficient to earn the championship.
But did you realize that, during the course of the series, the Pirates scored only 27 total runs to the Yankees’s 55 runs? Does anyone ever even stop to think about that?
Any baseball fan knows that teams do not win the World Series by scoring the most runs throughout the course of seven games. Instead, teams earn the championship by winning the most games during the series. Naturally, rules *could* be established that would allow the team scoring the most overall runs to win the World Series, but such rules would not accomplish the stated objective of a championship game: Awarding the best overall team the title of champion.
But what if the rules were revised? What if we said that a team could win the World Series by scoring the most runs throughout the course of seven games?
Such a revision might allow a team to win the World Series by having one great game and several really poor games. Maybe a team would rely too heavily on a player who hits well against a particular pitcher. Excellent performances throughout the World Series would not be required to earn the championship. A few, stellar performances could be sufficient. But we want our champions to be more well-rounded than that! We want them to do well in a variety of circumstances. We want them to win at home or away. We want them to persevere over the course of seven intense games.
Isn’t all of this just like the Electoral College? Didn’t the Founders have similar goals in mind as they designed the country’s presidential election system? Presidential candidates must get the most states’ electoral votes, not the most individual votes. The Founders did not want presidential candidates to win simply because they could accumulate high vote totals in a few big states or large cities. They wanted the most well-rounded candidate to win the presidency. The system they created forces candidates to win in a variety of locations nationwide and among many different types of voters.
Funny, isn’t it? It turns out that the 1960 World Series teaches us why the Electoral College is important
-------------
Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2016 by Tara Ross.
Permalink: http://www.taraross.com/2015/10/this-day-in-history-the-world-series-imitates-the-electoral-college/
@stonewall_jackson @ctvols @tcavol @Eyes4Vols @PredVol @DMS-PMS @AZZMAN75
@CavVol