The Electoral College and the Need for Change

The Electoral College is a figurehead of American politics, invented by the Founding Fathers to be another revolutionary aspect of this country’s framework. Introduced in the Constitution and solidified by the 12th amendment, the Electoral College elects the President and Vice President by tallying appointed electors’ votes. Each state was given several electors proportional to their population. In theory, this system would ensure that no one group dominates the electoral system and that every American citizen’s interests are represented in the outcome of the presidential election.

However, the Founding Fathers’ idealistic vision for the Electoral College has failed to hold true in today’s political sphere. As one of the most arguably contentious presidential elections draws closer, it is more important as ever to understand the unique structure that elects presidents in this country, and how it no longer serves its intended purpose today.

After the outcome of the 2016 election, in which Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump won the electoral college, the concept of abolishing the electoral college has become more prevalent.

In theory, the Electoral College’s intention was reputable; it strived to mitigate the disparities that could arise between high population and low population states and between informed and uninformed voters. In terms of population, the distribution of electors would allow for rural states’ interests to be balanced against states that contained the most influential cities in this country (Source). In terms of education differences, an election at the time of this country's founding very well could have been impacted by uninformed voters in highly rural parts of the country.

In practice, however, the Electoral College has served a much different purpose. This country’s deep-rooted differences have always been between North or South, inland or coastal, not between population density (Source). The two-party system has almost entirely done away with the fear of an uninformed electorate. The political parties and their chosen candidates represent a defined set of beliefs, particularly once the presidential nominee is appointed. Furthermore, the 12th Amendment’s ratification almost completely threw out the Electoral College’s original vision by creating a system in which a plurality elected the president. Presidential elections were now framed in terms of a two-party system, allowing them to take a populist tone, as presidential candidates only need to appeal to the highest number of people, not the majority. (Source).

When looking at the Electoral College through a modern lens, it has a much different relationship with democratic ideals. For one, a core standard in a democratic election is that each person is entitled to one vote. However, this is simply not true under the framework of the Electoral College. The relationship between the votes of a resident of Wyoming and a resident of California is indicative of this disparity. As the least populous state, Wyoming is entitled to three electoral votes, and California, as the most populous, is entitled to fifty-five. In a presidential election, one electoral vote for Wyoming represents around 190,000 people, while one electoral vote for California represents approximately 718,000 people. (Source). This disparity is directly contradictory to the idea of one person, one vote. In practice, this means that a president representing the needs of the majority of US citizens can lose to one that represents the needs of a few select states.

In the context of this upcoming election, this reality can be daunting. Unfortunately, as the election is less than a month away, the voting process will proceed within the context of the Electoral College. This opens up the possibility that the Democratic nominee will again secure the popular vote, but Donald Trump will win the election based on the outcome of a swing states’ votes. The concept of swing states is another facet of the Electoral College that does not hold up to democratic beliefs, essentially allowing one or two influential states to determine the outcome of the presidential election. In today’s presidential races, the nominees from each party skip over the states they know will vote in their favor. Instead, prioritize states that have gone to either party in the past and single-handedly change the election outcome. Ohio and Florida are more important than New York and California in this context. The result of this is an incoming President who has not spent the time addressing the majority of their constituents’ real and pressing needs.

Despite the inability to change the Electoral College’s impact on the 2020 election, there have been promising proposals for electoral reform. Ranked-choice voting is among the most popular of these proposed reforms. It would consist of a system where voters are allowed to rank the candidates for president, with the winner of the majority securing the presidency. The difference here is that a candidate must secure the majority, not a plurality. (Source) With multiple candidates on a ballot, the current system would allow for a candidate to win the election if they received the most votes, even if they only received 30-40% of the votes. In place of this system, ranked-choice would require that clear majority elected a candidate.

If implemented in lieu of the Electoral College, this system would ensure that a candidate focused on appealing to most of the electorate and making sure that their policies address the majority’s needs. It is critical that presidential candidates are bringing forth solutions to the problems that are facing the majority of Americans. Within this country’s political framework, there are additional elected officials dedicated to solving issues at the local and state levels. The office of the President needs to address the problems facing Americans outside of state lines. However, suppose presidential candidates continue to work within an electoral system that prioritizes one state’s vote over another. In that case, it will allow candidates to arise and succeed that pander to that system instead of confronting the issues facing their constituents.

Now, more than ever, it is vital to understand exactly what a vote is contributing to. Electing senators and Congress members that support electoral reform are critical in paving the way for alternatives to the Electoral College to be taken seriously. Ultimately, the Electoral College has failed to adhere to its original intention and has created more issues than it has solved. At this point, abolishing or heavily reforming the electoral process is the only effective way to mitigate those issues.