We are about to explore the complexities of the Electoral College, its impact on U.S. elections, and the ongoing debate over its relevance and future.
Every four years, Americans cast their votes in the hopes of electing a president who represents their values and vision for the country. Yet, despite what seems like a straightforward democratic process, the candidate with the most votes doesn’t always win. Instead, it’s the Electoral College—a centuries-old system that ultimately decides the outcome. Is this mechanism still relevant today, or has it outlived its usefulness?
What Is the Electoral College?
The Electoral College isn’t a physical place but a process established by the U.S. Constitution. It consists of 538 electors, corresponding to the total number of U.S. senators and representatives, plus three electors from Washington, D.C. To win the presidency, a candidate needs a majority—270 electoral votes.
The allocation of electors is based on each state’s congressional representation, meaning that states with larger populations have more electors. However, this also means that less populous states have a proportionally greater influence on the election outcome than their population would suggest.
With that being said, one must also consider that in these states that have a large population like New York or California, a bunch of the citizens live in concentrated areas and tend to vote along similar party lines. So, this could give a party like the Democratic party an unfair advantage because they tend to vote liberal and have large cities with a ton of people living in them. There are a decent amount of people who lean to the “right” but they tend to be further out… in less populated counties and smaller towns. For example… all someone has to do is win Florida, New York, Texas and California and those 152 votes are over half of the cotes needed to win.
As you can see, this isn’t such a cut and dried — simple discussion.
Here is a 2024 map of the United States with the number of votes each state has to allocate to the “game.”
How the Electoral College Works
When you vote in a presidential election, you’re not voting directly for a candidate. Instead, you’re voting for a slate of electors chosen by your state’s political parties. These electors, in turn, pledge to vote for their party’s candidate when they meet in December. The results are then counted by Congress in January, officially declaring the winners.
But the system isn’t without its quirks and controversies. For example, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) use a winner-take-all approach, where the candidate with the most votes in a state gets all its electoral votes. This can lead to situations where the national popular vote doesn’t align with the Electoral College result.
Let me say this in another way as I guarantee you that most people don’t know or grasp how this works:
In the U.S. presidential election system, when you vote, you’re actually voting for a slate of electors chosen by your state’s political party to support your preferred candidate. These electors make up the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President.
Here’s how it works:
- Popular Vote: On Election Day, voters in each state cast their ballots for a presidential candidate.
- Electors: The candidate who wins the most votes in a state usually gets all of that state’s electors (except in Maine and Nebraska, which use a proportional system).
- Electoral College: These electors then meet in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538) wins the election.
So, while your vote doesn’t directly elect the President, it influences how your state’s electors will vote in the Electoral College.
Historical Context and Evolution
The Electoral College was born out of compromise during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Founding Fathers debated whether the president should be elected by Congress or by popular vote and settled on the Electoral College as a middle ground. The system was designed to balance the influence of populous states with that of smaller ones, ensuring that all regions of the country had a voice in choosing the president.
I think the motives to do it that way were legitimate, but times have changed quite a bit since 1787.
Over time, the system has evolved, particularly with the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which established separate ballots for president and vice president. However, the fundamental structure of the Electoral College remains largely unchanged, even as the U.S. has expanded and transformed.
Controversies and Criticisms
One of the most contentious aspects of the Electoral College is its potential to contradict the popular vote. This has happened five times in U.S. history, most recently in 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes.
On a side note, many could argue that if the FBI and media did their job and properly handled the server scandal… perhaps Mrs. Clinton would have lost a ton of votes. I am sure a hardcore liberal would try to debate me on this, but the facts are out… she got preferential and unusual treatment from the FBI and from the media.
Critics argue that the system undermines the democratic principle of “one person, one vote,” as it allows for the possibility of a president being elected without a majority of the popular vote. The focus on swing states means that voters in solidly blue or red states may feel their votes don’t matter as much.
However, if you look at the voting results based on “land” or area… Trump won it by far… wasn’t even close.
Now one can say, “who cares about land” – well… the land has people living in it… and can be a better cross section of how people really feel if the area covered is large enough. I think having a bunch of counties with many people voting in it… from different industries and walks of life is more indicative of America than some crowded coastal city with a high concentration of people—many of whom vote for the same party/candidate.
Another criticism is the phenomenon of faithless electors—those who don’t vote for the candidate they pledged to support. While rare, these instances have sparked legal and political debates about the role of electors and the integrity of the system.
Unique Scenarios and Historical Anomalies
The Electoral College has also produced some unique scenarios, such as contingent elections. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation casts one vote for president. This has only happened twice, in 1800 and 1824, but it remains a possibility in future elections.
Modern Implications and Future Prospects
As the U.S. approaches the 2024 presidential election, the debate over the Electoral College is as heated as ever. Public opinion is divided, with some calling for its abolition in favor of a national popular vote, while others defend it as a vital component of the federal system.
Proposals for reform include the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where states agree to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes. Another idea is proportional representation, where electoral votes are distributed based on the percentage of the popular vote each candidate receives in a state.
Pros and Cons of the Popular Vote
Pros:
- Democratic Fairness: The popular vote aligns with the principle of “one person, one vote,” ensuring that the candidate with the most votes nationwide wins the presidency. This system reflects the will of the majority and reinforces the concept of direct democracy.
- Equal Representation: Every vote carries the same weight regardless of where it is cast, promoting a more equitable distribution of political power across all states. Voters in every state would feel that their vote matters equally in the outcome.
- Increased Voter Turnout: Since every vote is counted directly toward the national total, voters in states that are traditionally non-competitive (solidly red or blue) might be more motivated to participate, knowing their vote could influence the final result.
- Elimination of Swing States: The focus on a handful of swing states would be diminished, leading to a more balanced campaign effort where candidates must appeal to voters nationwide rather than concentrating on a few key battlegrounds.
Cons:
- Risk of Fragmentation: A popular vote system could lead to a fragmented electorate, particularly in a multi-candidate race, where a candidate might win with only a small plurality of votes, potentially leading to less consensus and greater political instability.
- Regionalism: The popular vote might encourage candidates to focus primarily on densely populated urban areas, potentially neglecting the interests of rural or less populous regions. This could exacerbate regional divides and undermine national cohesion.
- Logistical Challenges: Implementing a national popular vote system would require significant changes to the electoral process, including how votes are counted and reported across the country. There could be challenges in ensuring uniformity and fairness in how votes are cast and tallied.
- Potential for Disputed Elections: Close elections could lead to national recounts, legal challenges, and potential disputes over the legitimacy of the results, similar to the controversies that can arise under the Electoral College system but on a national scale.
Pros and Cons of the Electoral College
Proponents of the Electoral College argue that it protects the interests of smaller states and forces candidates to campaign across the entire country rather than focusing solely on urban areas. It also encourages coalition-building, as candidates must appeal to a broad range of voters to win the necessary electoral votes.
However, opponents argue that the system is outdated and undemocratic. They point to the disproportionate influence of swing states and the marginalization of third parties, which struggle to gain traction in a winner-take-all system. Some also believe that the Electoral College discourages voter turnout in non-competitive states, where the outcome is often seen as a foregone conclusion.
Pros:
- Protects Smaller States: The Electoral College ensures that smaller and less populous states have a voice in the election, preventing candidates from focusing solely on large urban centers. This system maintains a balance of power between states of varying sizes and populations.
- Encourages Coalition-Building: Candidates must build broad coalitions to win across different regions and states, which can lead to more moderate and widely acceptable candidates. This system can also prevent regional or fringe candidates from gaining disproportionate influence.
- Stability and Tradition: The Electoral College has been a stable system for over two centuries, and its continuity is seen by some as a safeguard against drastic changes to the electoral process. It also provides clear outcomes in most elections, avoiding the need for national recounts.
- Focuses Campaigns on Key States: By concentrating on swing states, candidates are forced to address the concerns of voters in diverse areas, which can lead to more balanced campaign platforms that consider a variety of regional issues.
Cons:
- Discrepancy with Popular Vote: The Electoral College can result in a president being elected without winning the national popular vote, as seen in several elections, most notably in 2000 and 2016. This discrepancy can lead to questions about the legitimacy of the election outcome.
- Overemphasis on Swing States: The Electoral College places disproportionate importance on a small number of swing states, leading candidates to focus their resources and policies on these areas while neglecting others. Voters in solidly red or blue states may feel their votes are less impactful.
- Discourages Voter Turnout: In non-competitive states, where the outcome is seen as a foregone conclusion, voter turnout can be lower because individuals feel their vote won’t change the result. This can lead to lower overall engagement in the political process.
- Faithless Electors: Although rare, the possibility of faithless electors—who do not vote in line with their pledge—introduces an element of unpredictability and can undermine the public’s trust in the electoral process.
In Conclusion…
The Electoral College is a complex and often misunderstood part of the U.S. electoral system. While it has played a crucial role in American democracy for over two centuries, its relevance and fairness are increasingly questioned in today’s political landscape. As debates over potential reforms continue, it’s essential for citizens to understand how the system works and the impact it has on their vote.
The future of the Electoral College remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: its role in U.S. presidential elections will continue to be a topic of discussion and debate for years to come. Whether it will adapt to modern democratic ideals or remain a fixture of American politics is a question only time will answer.
The popular vote and the Electoral College have their strengths and weaknesses. The debate over which system better serves the democratic process in the United States is ongoing, with valid arguments on both sides. The choice between the two reflects differing views on how best to balance the principles of democracy, federalism, and political stability.
My Bottom line:
I was hoping after doing this deep dive into this that I would have a clear-cut “favorite” between the two but I do not.
I know… I know… for someone as opinionated as me… I must be off of my game today… but nope… it’s a very complex topic and there is no sure answer… especially with so much at stake and with so many moving parts and a lot of bias, fraud, corruption and BS circling all around it.
The Electoral College system can be “gamed” where you just have to focus on a few key states and pick up the smaller ones from your momentum. And the idea of a handful of people in each state… controlling so much power and such—doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t care about the tradition part of this… I care about the country and getting it right… and with a reasonable and fair representation for the citizens of this nation.
The popular vote can be “gamed” via cities… where you just focus on large cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, New York City, Phoenix, etc. and then the term “flyover” states would really be a negative label because all a politician would have to do is go to the coastal cities and just a handful of other key cities with heavily concentrated like-minded folks… promise them the world and boom – they are President. It shouldn’t be that easy, but with how social media, mainstream media and other things are today… it’s not out of the question.
Both systems have their good qualities and bad… I wonder if they can be mixed… and the bad part of each is mitigated out.
I checked out some other proposed systems like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) which is kind of hybrid and is getting momentum, which is why I am bringing it up. It’s heralded as a solid system and they claim it differs from a straightforward popular vote system in that it still uses the framework of the Electoral College but aligns the outcome with the national popular vote rather than the state-by-state results.
I think it’s a shell game though because the fact it goes to an “electoral college” like system really is just a matter of procedure though as the states would be compelled to go with the national popular vote so it’s not much different from the popular vote. And this inherently is flawed as each state has it’s own unique needs and concerns… for example, the issues of California differ from Nebraska. And by a state simply going with the national vote… the state’s issues can be overlooked, depending on who gets elected. Also, from a legal standpoint of implementing it… it’s done at the state level… which potentially avoids a need for a constitutional amendment, which to me… kind of seems shady. It avoids the rigors of a national debate… and sidesteps the checks & balances that were rightfully put into our system of government.
A Better Way???
One alternative “system” that for me has some promise is used by Maine and Nebraska which allocates electoral votes by congressional district rather than at the state level, potentially reducing the winner-take-all impact.
In both Maine and Nebraska, each congressional district within the state is awarded one electoral vote. The candidate who wins the popular vote in each district receives that district’s electoral vote. The remaining two (in this example for these specific states) electoral votes (corresponding to the state’s two senators) are awarded to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote.
This seems like it would take into consideration the “area” concept I talked about above, would be more reflective of the local preferences, encourages broader campaigning, reduces the overwhelming influence of huge like-minded cities (many of which have a ton of issues), keep the good points of the electoral college and people’s votes count… it’s just at a more granular level, which I think is a good thing… and more fair.
The downside is that it would rely on congressional districts, and that is an area of the political system where the “drawing” of them has a ton of BS involved. Go check out some of the “shapes” of some of these districts and it’s very clear that they were rigged. Both parties do it.
Look, there is no perfect system… we just gotta go with the least smelling turd. Although it’s still a “turd” (isn’t just about everything in politics a bit “smelly”) I think this “Congressional Direct Method” shows some promise.
The system seems to be a way to be a more accurate reflection of voter preferences within different regions of the state. By awarding electoral votes based on congressional districts, the method allows for diverse political landscapes within a state to be represented in the electoral outcome.
I need to look more into it and see how it’s fairing in those 2 states, but at first glance… it seems better than what we have.
The biggest flaw in this way of figuring out who are elected leaders will be is the same issue that we have in every “system”… humans. People are just schmucks… and mess up everything that we touch.
If the districts can be drawn in a fair and reasonable way… this system may be the best one out there.
Anyways… becoming President of the United States has become a reality show… and a sport… and I do not think that bodes well for the country… nor any of us who live in it.
