The Electoral College, Explained -Tim Lau
A national popular vote would help ensure that every vote
counts equally, making American democracy more representative.
In the United States, the presidency is decided not by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College — an outdated and convoluted system that sometimes yields results contrary to the choice of the majority of American voters. On five occasions, including in two of the last six elections, candidates have won the Electoral College, and thus the presidency, despite losing the nationwide popular vote.
The Electoral College has racist origins — when established, it applied the three-fifths clause, which gave a long-term electoral advantage to slave states in the South — and continues to dilute the political power of voters of color. It incentivizes presidential campaigns to focus on a relatively small number of “swing states.” Together, these dynamics have spurred debate about the system’s democratic legitimacy.
To make the United States a more representative democracy, reformers are pushing for the presidency to be decided instead by the national popular vote, which would help ensure that every voter counts equally.
What is the Electoral College and how does it work?
The Electoral College is a group of intermediaries designated by the Constitution to select the president and vice president of the United States. Each of the 50 states is allocated presidential electors equal to the number of its representatives and senators. The ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 allowed citizens in the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections as well; they have consistently had three electors.
In total, the Electoral College comprises 538 members. A presidential candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes cast to win — at least 270 if all 538 electors vote.
The Constitution grants state legislatures the power to decide how to appoint their electors. Initially, a number of state legislatures directly selected their electors, but during the 19th century they transitioned to the popular vote, which is now used by all 50 states. In other words, each awards its electoral votes to the presidential candidate chosen by the state’s voters.
Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia use a winner-take-all system, awarding all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the state. Maine and Nebraska award one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts and their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner. Under this system, those two states sometimes split their electoral votes among candidates.
In the months leading up to the general election, the political parties in each state typically nominate their own slates of would-be electors. The state’s popular vote determines which party’s slates will be made electors. Members of the Electoral College meet and vote in their respective states on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December after Election Day. Then, on January 6, a joint session of Congress meets at the Capitol to count the electoral votes and declare the outcome of the election, paving the way for the presidential inauguration on January 20.
How was the Electoral College established?
The Constitutional Convention in 1787 settled on the Electoral College as a compromise between delegates who thought Congress should select the president and others who favored a direct nationwide popular vote. Instead, state legislatures were entrusted with appointing electors.
Article II of the Constitution, which established the executive branch of the federal government, outlined the framers’ plan for the electing the president and vice president. Under this plan, each elector cast two votes for president; the candidate who received the most votes became the president, with the second-place finisher becoming vice president — which led to administrations in which political opponents served in those roles. The process was overhauled in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment, which required electors to cast votes separately for president and vice president.
How did slavery shape the Electoral College?
At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the northern states and southern states had roughly equal populations. However, nonvoting enslaved people made up about one-third of the southern states’ population. As a result, delegates from the South objected to a direct popular vote in presidential elections, which would have given their states less electoral representation.
The debate contributed to the convention’s eventual decision to establish the Electoral College, which applied the three-fifths compromise that had already been devised for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Three out of five enslaved people were counted as part of a state’s total population, though they were nonetheless prohibited from voting.
Wilfred U. Codrington III, an assistant professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and a Brennan Center fellow, writes that the South’s electoral advantage contributed to an “almost uninterrupted trend” of presidential election wins by southern slaveholders and their northern sympathizers throughout the first half of the 19th century. After the Civil War, in 1876, a contested Electoral College outcome was settled by a compromise in which the House awarded Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency with the understanding that he would withdraw military forces from the Southern states. This led to the end of Reconstruction and paved the way for racial segregation under Jim Crow laws.
Today, Codrington argues, the Electoral College continues to dilute the political power of Black voters: “Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. … Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged.”
What are faithless electors?
Ever since the 19th century reforms, states have expected their electors to honor the will of the voters. In other words, electors are now pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. However, the Constitution does not require them to do so, which allows for scenarios in which “faithless electors” have voted against the popular vote winner in their states. As of 2016, there have been 90 faithless electoral votes cast out of 23,507 in total across all presidential elections. The 2016 election saw a record-breaking seven faithless electors, including three who voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was not a presidential candidate at the time.
Currently, 33 states and the District of Columbia require their presidential electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Only 5 states, however, impose a penalty on faithless electors, and only 14 states provide for faithless electors to be removed or for their votes to be canceled. In July 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld existing state laws that punish or remove faithless electors.
What happens if no candidate wins a majority of Electoral College votes?
If no ticket wins a majority of Electoral College votes, the presidential election is sent to the House of Representatives for a runoff. Unlike typical House practice, however, each state only gets one vote, decided by the party that controls the state’s House delegation. Meanwhile, the vice-presidential race is decided in the Senate, where each member has one vote. This scenario has not transpired since 1836, when the Senate was tasked with selecting the vice president after no candidate received a majority of electoral votes.
Are Electoral College votes distributed equally between states?
Each state is allocated a number of electoral votes based on the total size of its congressional delegation. This benefits smaller states, which have at least three electoral votes — including two electoral votes tied to their two Senate seats, which are guaranteed even if they have a small population and thus a small House delegation. Based on population trends, those disparities will likely increase as the most populous states are expected to account for an even greater share of the U.S. population in the decades ahead.
What did the 2020 election reveal about the Electoral College?
In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential race, Donald Trump and his allies fueled an effort to overturn the results of the election, spreading repeated lies about widespread voter fraud. This included attempts by a number of state legislatures to nullify some of their states’ votes, which often targeted jurisdictions with large numbers of Black voters. Additionally, during the certification process for the election, some members of Congress also objected to the Electoral College results, attempting to throw out electors from certain states. While these efforts ultimately failed, they revealed yet another vulnerability of the election system that stems from the Electoral College.
The Electoral Count Reform Act, enacted in 2023, addresses these problems. Among other things, it clarifies which state officials have the power to appoint electors, and it bars any changes to that process after Election Day, preventing state legislatures from setting aside results they do not like. The new law also raises the threshold for consideration of objections to electoral votes. It is now one-fifth of each chamber instead of one senator and one representative. Click here for more on the changes made by the Electoral Count Reform Act.
What are ways to reform the Electoral College to make presidential
elections
more democratic?
Abolishing the Electoral College outright would require a constitutional amendment. As a workaround, scholars and activist groups have rallied behind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV), an effort that started after the 2000 election. Under it, participating states would commit to awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
In other words, the NPV would formally retain the Electoral College but render it moot, ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote also wins the presidency. If enacted, the NPV would incentivize presidential candidates to expand their campaign efforts nationwide, rather than focus only on a small number of swing states.
For the NPV to take effect, it must first be adopted by states that control at least 270 electoral votes. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact the compact. As of 2019, a total of 19 states and Washington, DC, which collectively account for 196 electoral votes, have joined.
The public has consistently supported a nationwide popular vote. A 2020 poll by Pew Research Center, for example, found that 58 percent of adults prefer a system in which the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins the presidency.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/electoral-college-explained
The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College
Amelia Josephson - 2023
When you go to the polls to vote for a president every four years, you’re participating in an indirect vote. Why is it indirect? Well, because of the electoral college. Some say the electoral college is key to maintaining what’s good about U.S. politics, while others want to abolish the institution in favor of a more direct system. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of the electoral college in the context of modern American politics.
Advantages of the Electoral College
The electoral college has a number of pros and cons, depending on where you fall on the political spectrum. While it prevents an easy-to-understand election that would draw from a popular vote, it was originally enacted to give every state its fair say in who gets elected to the highest office in the country. Here are the most relevant benefits:
1. It Keeps Smaller States Relevant in National Politics
Imagine a U.S. presidential election with no electoral college. If only the popular vote mattered, candidates might concentrate their energies on densely populated metro areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Depending on your perspective, that might sound like a change for the worse. It would mean candidates would have little reason to consider, say, the state of farming in Iowa or the opiate crisis in New Hampshire.
One reason that some analysts support the electoral college is that it encourages candidates to pay attention to small states and not just get out the vote in big, populous states and cities. The electoral college gives small states more weight in the political process than their population would otherwise confer.
2. Provides Clean, Widely Accepted Ending to Election (Most of the Time)
The electoral college, proponents say, makes U.S. presidential elections less contentious by providing a clear ending. There’s no need for a national recount when you have an electoral college.
If one state has voting issues, you can just do a recount in that state rather than creating national upheaval. And to win, a candidate must garner the support of voters in a variety of regions. That means whoever wins the presidency must build a truly national coalition. This, in turn, helps promote national cohesion and the peaceful transfer of power between presidents and helps keep the nation’s political system stable.
3. It Makes it Easier for Candidates to Campaign
If you’re a Democrat running for president, you don’t have to spend too much time or money wooing voters in left-leaning California. The same goes for Republican candidates and right-leaning Texas.
The fact that certain states and their electoral votes are safely in the column of one party or the other makes it easier and cheaper for candidates to campaign successfully. They can focus their energies on the battleground states. Some argue that getting rid of the electoral college could make American presidential elections even more expensive than they already are, exacerbating what some see as America’s campaign finance problem.
Disadvantages of the Electoral College
In politics, there are very few things that make everyone happy. The electoral college is no different as there are a few cons that need to be considered. Here are the most important cons to the electoral college.
1. It Can Make People Feel Like Their Votes Don’t Matter
In the electoral college, it’s true that not every vote matters. A Democrat in California who gets stuck in traffic and doesn’t make it to the polls probably shouldn’t beat themselves up. The same can’t be said for a voter in Florida, Ohio or another swing state.
U.S. voter participation rates are already quite low. Some argue that eliminating the electoral college would be an easy way to raise them and boost Americans’ engagement in the political process.
2. It Gives Too Much Power to Swing States
If you follow U.S. federal elections and you don’t live in a swing state, you might find yourself grumbling that some voters get all the attention. If you don’t live in a swing state like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and more, you probably won’t see as many ads, have as many canvassers come to your door or get polled as frequently. The electoral college means that swing states – which aren’t necessarily the most representative of the country as a whole – get most of the attention.
And even within swing states, certain counties are more competitive than others. That means voters in those counties are courted particularly hard. If that offends your sense of fairness and you think that candidates should fight for the votes of all Americans, you may oppose the electoral college. In fact, this result has ended up creating the same thing that the electoral college is supposed to prevent, which is candidates focusing on a few specific areas.
3. It Can Clash With the Popular Vote
Remember the 2000 election when Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college, and therefore the presidency? That was enough to turn some Americans off from the electoral college forever.
If the U.S. eliminates the electoral college, that scenario would never happen again. The potential for the electoral college to conflict with the result of the popular vote is one of the most commonly cited arguments against the electoral college.
4. There Remains the Possibility of “Rogue Electors”
Many states have no law requiring electors to vote the way their state has voted. Electors in these states are “unbound.” Therefore, the electoral college is based on a set of traditions that electors vote the way their state votes.
However, there’s always the possibility of “rogue” or “faithless” electors who could give a vote to a candidate who didn’t win the elector’s state. This also worries critics of the electoral college.
Pro or Con: It Keeps the Two-Party System Strong
This one is either a pro or a con, depending on your point of view. The electoral college helps keep the two-party system strong. It makes it very hard for a third party to break through at the national level and increases the risk that a third party could spoil a candidate’s chance of winning, which in turn discourages people from voting for third-party candidates.
Some analysts credit the two-party system with keeping American politics stable and driving candidates to the political center, while others would like to see a multi-party system takes hold in the U.S. So, depending on where you stand with regard to the two-party system, you’ll probably have corresponding feelings about the electoral college.
The Bottom Line
Will the U.S. decide to eliminate the electoral college? It’s hard to say. There’s a movement to encourage states to split their electors in proportion to the percentage of the state vote that each candidate gets. While that wouldn’t eliminate the electoral college, it would change the winner-take-all nature of our system and the way candidates think about state campaigns. Time will tell whether that reform – and others – come to pass.
https://smartasset.com/insights/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-electoral-college
Arguments For and Against the Electoral College (Pros and Cons)
Overview and History
The electoral college has been subject to much furious debate in recent years. This is partially a partisan issue. In the past five presidential elections, a Republican won the electoral college, while a Democrat won the popular vote. A candidate winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college had only happened three times in the nation's history before that. Currently, a majority of Americans support abolishing the electoral college, but because it is in the US constitution, getting rid of it will be incredibly difficult.
Rethinking the City: The 15-Minute Movement
Part of the debate centers on whether the system is an antiquated one. The electoral college was put in the Constitution in order to act as a check on direct democracy. With this system, each state appoints a number of electors, based on the number of representatives each state has in both houses of Congress, and these electors pick the president. It is expected that each elector will vote for the winner of each state's popular vote, but that is not a given.
There have been a number of "faithless electors" in US history, though none have ever affected the outcome of an election. Adding to the confusion, both Nebraska and Maine award their electors proportionately, giving the winner of each congressional district one elector, and awarding two to the winner of the state as a whole.
Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College
States' Rights
The first and most often proposed defense of the electoral college is that it defends states' rights. This goes along with the original intention of the way the government was structured. Initially, each state in the Union wanted a certain amount of autonomy from the federal government, and smaller states wanted to not be subjected to the whims of the larger states.
Opponents of the electoral college try to dismantle this argument by pointing to the bad history that states' rights as an argument has had. That history is summed up in two words, slavery and segregation. However, states' rights as a concept are not easily reduced to those two odious uses of the term. One issue that is usually supported by those on the left is marijuana legalization. With this issue, there has been fear that the federal government will not respect individual states' rights to legalize marijuana.
The argument is more complex than it initially appears. Opponents of the electoral college usually appeal to a concept of "one vote, one person." Still, there are obviously situations that we do not rely on democracy to solve the problem. If there is a dispute between the states of California and Nevada, the situation is not resolved by a democratic vote by the citizens of those two states. An appointed judiciary resolves the situation. The concept of the electoral college functions a similar way, not allowing the interests of large states to trample those of small states.
It Forces Presidents to Gain Bipartisan Support
Adding to this argument, proponents of the electoral college might say that the reason we have seen a recent disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral college winner is that one party has primarily been serving the demographics of the more densely populated states of the East and West Coast, while the other party has had support from more rural states in the middle of the country. The intent of the electoral college was to force presidents to have to gain wide regional support, meaning that even if they get fewer votes, they are appealing to a wider net of voters across various states with different economies and interests.
Simplicity
A final argument for the electoral college is it keeps elections simple. With a popular vote, a close election could involve a massive recount across the whole country. With this system, a few states decide the election, and those states that usually go to one party or the other by a wide margin are having the interests of the majority of their citizens honored.
The System Usually Works
Proponents could also point out that only once has the winner of the popular vote who lost the electoral college won a majority of the country's voters. Most recently, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a particularly wide margin, but she still only won 48.2% of voters, compared to the over 50% that Barack Obama won both times. Giving the presidency to a candidate who could not secure the majority of the voters over one who won the electoral college might seem equally problematic to some people. However, opponents of the electoral college can counter this argument by appealing to a system of "ranked-choice" voting, like the one already implemented in the state of Maine.
Arguments Against the Electoral College
It's Undemocratic
The most commonly used argument against the electoral college is that it is undemocratic. This was by design, but opponents of the electoral college question the foundations of these intentions. A state like Wyoming, the least populated state in the country, gets a disproportionate influence on presidential elections to what seems like an absurd degree. Even if the states' rights arguments are taken seriously, it could be argued that there are better ways to preserve the rights of individual states than subjecting people in more populated states to the values of rural Americans to such an absurd degree.
It Empowers White, Rural Voters
Part of this argument is the fact that many of these rural states are largely white, and this allows an already majority group, white Americans, to have an even greater amount of power over the government. This racial dimension is undeniable, and states' rights have been used as shields for bigots in the past.
It Empowers a Handful of Swing States
Another argument against the electoral college is it places all the emphasis on a handful of swing states. While proponents of the electoral college see this as a plus, opponents see it as a bad thing. It means that the president can campaign toward the whims of a small group of swing voters in key states. The reason opponents don't like this is they see it as making most votes in the election irrelevant, even if he overall views of their state may lean heavily toward one party or the other.
Many other countries have a parliamentary system, where the prime minister is appointed based on the election of the members of his party to parliament. This also takes the individual voter out of the direct election of the prime minister, but it places emphasis on the election of each individual member of parliament. Some would argue this is a far superior system to the electoral college system, even if the idea of a popular vote is flawed.
It Renders Third-Party Voting Irrelevant
Another interesting argument against the electoral college is that it makes third-party voting irrelevant. Even if a relevant third-party candidate emerges, it is almost impossible for them to win the presidency. Proponents of the electoral college might argue that third-party voting would not be helped by a popular vote since every vote would count, each person might feel more obligated to vote for a candidate of one of the two major parties, even in what would now be seen as a safe blue or red state.
It is worth noting, however, that countries with a parliamentary system often have robust third, fourth, or even fifth parties. Ruling parties have to form alliances with other parties in order to get a majority, and such a system means that a lot more viewpoints get represented in the workings of government and the crafting of legislation than the system the United States currently has.
..................
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate
and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted
for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Arguments-For-And-Against-The-Electoral-College
Problems with the Electoral College
Many observers believe the Electoral College introduces complications and potential problems into our political system. These concerns include some of the following:
Grossly unequal distribution of campaign resources
See our 2008 Election Recap.
https://archive3.fairvote.org/election-2008-recap/
Unequal voting power depending on where you live
The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.
For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.
See how your state racks up against the rest on our Population vs. Electoral Vote page.
The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states. The fear was that without this power, politicians would completely ignore small states and only focus on big population centers.
Read this Providence Journal article on how small states control elections.
Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all states give all of its electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to win the presidency. Naturally, candidates tend to concentrate resources on the largest payoffs, the states which can provide the greatest number of electoral votes.
For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Kimberling's essay, A Brief History of the Electoral College. Kimberling was the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election Administration.
Looking at the Numbers: Minority Rules
Just how many people elect the president of the United States? The answer may surprise you.
Consider the 2000 presidential elections. Even though more than 100 million people voted in the election, only a small portion of those votes in fact were decisive. Indeed, the results would have been exactly the same even if nearly 80 million of those voters would have stayed home.
Here's what we mean:
Total number of votes cast nationwide in Presidential elections:
105,396,641 in 2000
131, 338,626 in 2008
Total number of votes cast for the winner in their states won:
26,353,058 in 30 states for George W. Bush
39,908,351 in 29 states (including DC) for Barack Obama
Total number of votes that did not factor in determining the winner of the president in their respective years:
To win the Electoral College in 2000, Bush needed only
21,835,615 votes out of a total of 105,396,641
votes.
To win the Electoral College in 2008, Obama needed only
39,908,351 votes out of a total of 131,338,626 votes.
Percentage of votes that did not factor in determining the winner in
their respective years:
79.28% in 2000
70.39% in 2008
The winner-take-all method of distributing electoral votes
The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.
Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.
Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not necessarily the small states, but rather they are states that are not viewed as competitive.
Since all but two states allocate their votes via a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that clearly favors one candidate. As an example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they know that states like Florida and Michigan are toss-ups.
The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes.
Unbound electors
There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. Even in the states that do have control, often the punishment or repercussion is slim or nothing (some states issue only minimal fines as punishment), although some states instigate criminal charges ranging from a simple misdemeanor to a fourth degree felony. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:
Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)
Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state's popular vote or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.
Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state's law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District's unfair voting rights.
Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they prersonally prefer, despite the general public's desire.
- - - - - See our list of "Faithless Electors" through history. (put link on this)
This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system. The electors from nearly half of the states can vote however they wish, regardless of the popular will of the state.
In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. The founders feared uneducated public opinion and designed the Electoral College as a layer of insulation from the direct voice of the masses.
There is no reason, in this modern day, to assign this responsibility to a set of individual electors. Hundreds of thousands of votes can and have been violated by an individual elector, choosing to act on his or her own behalf instead of the behalf of the people.
As of the 2008 election, since the founding of the Electoral College, 157 electors have not cast their votes for the candidates who they were designated to represent.
House of Representatives can choose the president
If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives and the vice presidential vote is deferred to the Senate. This could easily lead to a purely partisan battle, instead of an attempt to discover which candidate the citizens really prefer.
If the Senate and the House of Representatives reflect different majorities, meaning that they select members of opposing parties, the offices of president and vice president could be greatly damaged. This potential opposition in the presidential office would not be good for the stability of the country or the government.
Enforcement of a two-party system
Because of our two-party system, voters often find themselves voting for the "lesser of two evils," rather than a candidate they really feel would do the best job. The Electoral College inadvertently reinforces this two party system, where third parties cannot enter the race without being tagged as "spoilers."
Since most states distribute their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, the smaller party has no chance to gain support without seeming to take this support from one of the major parties. Few people will support a party that never wins, especially when they are supporting that party at the possible expense of their least favorite candidate taking power (as happened to Nader/Gore supporters in 2000 and Perot/Bush supporters in 1992).
Presidency can be won without a majority of the popular vote
As the 2000 election demonstrated, it is possible for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote. Nor was the Bush/Gore election the first time a presidential candidate has won the presidency while someone else claimed a plurality of the votes cast. Andrew Jackson and Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1824 and 1876 respectively, only to see someone else walk into the White House.
As an even more common occurrence is for a presidential candidate to win both the presidency and the popular vote without actually winning a majority of all ballots cast. This has happened 16 times since the founding of the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. In every one of the elections, more than half of the voters voted against the candidate who was elected.
With such a winner-take-all system, it is impossible to tell which candidate the people really prefer, especially in a close race.
© 2000 – 2014 FairVote. All Rights Reserved.
https://archive3.fairvote.org/reforms/national-popular-vote/the-electoral-college/problems-with-the-electoral-college/
What Are Arguments Made in Favor & Against The Electoral College?
- by Nathaniel Bates
1. Why do reformers propose abolishing the Electoral College?
Reformers argue that the Electoral College hampers democracy in a manner inconsistent with modern American practices. All votes are not counted equally under the Electoral College. Under our admittedly complex and convoluted system, a single vote for president in the State of Wyoming, for instance, counts for more than a single vote in California. Tiny Wyoming has an inflated number of electoral votes--three--because every state is awarded a minimum of three (one for its member of Congress and two for each senator). California, with a population over fifty times as large as Wyoming, has only a little more than eighteen times as many electoral votes. This means that a vote in Wyoming counts about three times more than a vote in California.
An additional argument is made by George C. Edwards in Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America (Yale University Press, 2004). He points out that nearly two dozen elections were so closely decided that they could have ended up in the House of Representatives with the switch of just a few thousand votes in key states. Two elections (1800, 1824) actually have been thrown into the House of Representatives, while the Supreme Court decided one (2000), and another was settled by a special congressional committee (1976). Each of the disputed elections removed the voting process from the people and created discontent. Such breakdowns in the electoral process undermine democracy and raise questions about the legitimacy of the government elected under these circumstances. Finally, it is always possible that the country could be so divided that an election referred to the House might never be settled there, leaving the office to be filled under the terms of the law of succession.
Another untoward effect of the Electoral College is the emphasis placed upon so-called swing states, which leads to the neglect of the voters in the majority of states where one party or the other holds sway. In the election of 2004, for example, George W. Bush spent little time in California as it was expected to vote Democratic. By contrast, he made more than forty visits to the swing state of Pennsylvania during his term. The larger the swing state, the more attention it receives from the candidates from both parties.
Although it is said that the Electoral College tends to inflate the victories of the winners, helping establish their legitimacy, such victories do not guarantee presidents a free ride in Congress, where their party may be in the minority or the politicians may simply not believe that an Electoral College landslide should be treated the same as a genuine popular majority landslide. President Ronald Reagan, for example, won an Electoral College landslide in 1980 but faced considerable opposition from the Democratic House of Representatives during his term. Only his gifted ability to communicate with the voters helped him win the passage of his key tax cuts. In other words, it was his skill as a politician not necessarily the strength of his Electoral College landslide that helped him succeed in controlling the agenda of Congress (and this was only during his first term).
2. Who supports Electoral College reform?
A surprising number of presidents have lined up behind proposals to reform or abolish the Electoral College: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. Madison was present at the Constitutional Convention, yet he was dissatisfied with the compromise between the large states and the small states that gave rise to the Electoral College system and as early as 1792 went on record as favoring the direct election of presidents. Jackson, confident of his support among the people and furious with the deal-making that cost him the presidency in 1824 despite his plurality in the popular vote, despised the Electoral College. Nixon became disenchanted with the system after the three-way election of 1968 nearly ended up in the House of Representatives, where George Wallace hoped to be able to wring concessions for the South in Civil Rights battles. More recently, after the Bush v. Gore decision of 2000, New York Senator Hillary Clinton called for the abolition of the Electoral College, along with Representatives Jim Moran and Dick Gephardt. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has also added his voice to those who favor a popular vote for president.
Opposition to the Electoral College has generally come from the political Left, although Edwards cites a few conservatives, such as Nixon, Ford and Bob Dole, who have also pushed for abolition. A coalition of progressives and some conservatives has emerged in recent years, uniting unions and business in support of the direct election of the president. Groups such as the American Bar Association, the League of Women Voters, and Progressive Magazine have joined them.
Support for abolition comes has sometimes surfaced in unexpected places. In 1988, George Edwards relates, a political scientist was invited to speak before a group of electors. The speaker denounced the Electoral College as a coterie of elitists whose very existence thwarts democracy. The electors did not take offense. Instead, they voted to pass a resolution calling for the abolition of the Electoral College.*
3. What arguments can be made in favor of the Electoral College?
Edwards dismisses the argument that direct election could lead to popular despotism. But the fear of despotism was strong among the Founding Fathers. It was gleaned from examples in ancient Rome, which witnessed instances of mob rule.
Members of small states argue that if the system were abolished presidents would never bother visiting--or even advertising. Why visit a small state with a media market that reaches, say, 100,000 people, when a visit to a large state can put the candidate in touch with millions?
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a traditional Democrat, supports the Electoral College out of a strong fear that Third Parties would "disunite" America, a theme that Schlesinger has long considered worthy of discussion. American elections, he fears, could degenerate into purely parliamentary affairs, in which the government would become susceptible to long and frequent bouts of instability. Instead of abolishing the Electoral College, Schlesinger calls for it to be mended. To retain the advantage it gives to the two-party system while enhancing the power of the people, he recommends that the popular winner of each state be given an extra two electoral votes, resulting in an extra 102 electoral votes (including an extra two votes for the District of Columbia). This "National Bonus Plan" would presumably preserve the power of the states to function as organic units, while dispensing with the most undemocratic feature of the Electoral College, the tremendous weight given to small states. Under the weighted Electoral College proposed by Schlesinger, the electoral system would presumably preserve traditional federalism, while at the same time maintaining a better correlation between the Electoral College and the popular vote.**
4. Is there a chance that the system will be reformed?
Judith Best, a defender of the Electoral College, believes that people identify with their states and would be upset to lose the advantage many states derive under the current system. The "Red-Blue" pattern seen in the 2000 election would seem to suggest that states do fall into cultural and political patterns that are distinct. Few "Red States" seem likely to support the abolition of the Electoral College in the near future.
Harvard political scientist Alexander Keyssar argues that Electoral College reform is likely in the event of another disputed election. In an article in the Boston Globe he noted that reform nearly came about under President Richard Nixon. Only the opposition of the Old South bosses in Congress prevented change.
The Constitution of course is difficult to amend. As Charles Beard pointed out, it was expressly intended to limit democracy. To this day the system the Founders put in place fulfills their expectations.
*"Why the Electoral College Should Be Abolished," by Lawrence D. Longley. Speech to the 1976 Electoral College in Madison, Wisconsin, as Edwards reports in his book. The Electors were magnanimous in the fact of insult adopted the following resolution: "Resolved: That the 1988 Wisconsin Presidential Electoral College goes on record as calling upon Congress to act to abolish the Electoral College-including the office of Elector; The U.S. President instead should and must be elected directly and equitably by a vote of the American people."
** Arthur Schlesinger, The Imperial Presidency (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), pages 483-484.
https://hnn.us/articles/8163.html
Debating the Electoral College
Two Elections Experts Argue for and Against This Uniquely American Institution
For some, the Electoral College is an essential legacy of the founders’ vision. For others, it’s a relic enabling a tyranny of the minority.
As a compromise between electing the president by popular vote or letting Congress choose the chief executive, our founders settled on the idea of using electors. Each state has as many electors as it has members of the U.S. House and Senate. Together, these 538 electors make up the Electoral College, which has one purpose: to choose the president every four years.
Electors generally are chosen by the political parties, though laws governing the selection process vary by state. Today, 48 states allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote—a winner-take-all approach. Maine and Nebraska give two electors to the winner of the statewide vote, then apportion one elector to the top vote-getter from each congressional district. A presidential candidate must get at least 270 Electoral College votes to win the office.
In recent years, state lawmakers have debated the continued use of the Electoral College. Should it be left intact or abolished? Improved or replaced? Opinions differ. We offer two views here. Trent England, director of the Save Our States project, favors the current system. Vermont Senator Christopher Pearson (P/D) sits on the board of the National Popular Vote Inc. and would do away with our winner-take-all system.
..............................
PRO: Current System Keeps States in Charge of Our Elections
The Electoral College preserves needed checks and balances.
By Trent England
The Electoral College ensures that our national politics stay national.
It keeps states in charge of election administration and contains disputes within individual states. Under our current system, there are no nationwide recounts, and presidential appointees do not run presidential elections. Eliminating the Electoral College, or nullifying it with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, would eliminate these benefits and radically change American politics.
The first draft of the U.S. Constitution—the Virginia Plan—proposed that Congress choose the president. The Constitutional Convention rejected this parliamentary model. The delegates wanted an independent executive and real separation of powers. Some suggested a direct election, but that too was rejected. The Electoral College was the result of a compromise, just like Congress and the Bill of Rights.
At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority.
This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.
While some whined about the Electoral College, smarter Democrats set about the hard work of reaching out and building a broader coalition. They focused on voters in the north and in the new western states, especially those being ignored by Republican political machines. Their outreach to immigrants and Catholics rebuilt the Democratic Party. It also helped break down sectional divides and heal the nation.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which 15 states have joined, would eliminate incentives to build a nationwide coalition. Geographic diversity would be irrelevant in the election. And with no runoffs or minimum threshold to win, a national public vote would encourage fringe parties and spoiler candidates, leading to winners with smaller and smaller pluralities.
The popular vote compact would rely on each participating state to certify, for itself, a national vote total. These states are expected to trust, with no power to verify, the accuracy and honesty of every other state’s elections. They would aggregate votes across jurisdictions with different rules and processes, likely violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Like the United States, most major countries use a two-step democratic process to choose their head of government. These systems prevent regionalism and some, like the Electoral College, reduce the possibility of having winners with small pluralities and decentralized support. Proposals to eliminate the Electoral College, or to do an “end run” with the popular vote compact, would eliminate these checks and balances in favor of a simple majority.
The Electoral College is not perfect—no election system is. But it has stood the test of time. The process rewards coalition-building and prevents nationwide recounts. In most elections, it simply amplifies the popular vote result. In every election, it allows states to remain in charge and contains disputes within state lines. In a time of political turbulence, the United States needs the Electoral College more than ever.
Trent England is the founder and director of Save Our States and the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
The Founding Fathers thought it was the best way to choose the president.
The U.S. Constitution should be amended only rarely.
It safeguards against uninformed or uneducated voters.
It prevents states with larger populations from having undue influence.
It forces presidential candidates to campaign in all parts of the
country.
It lessens the likelihood of calls for recounts or demands for runoff
elections.
........................................
CON: Winner-Take-All Ignores the Will of Too Many Voters
The Electoral College should follow the popular vote.
By Christopher Pearson
Americans want a popular vote for president. Fortunately, how the Electoral College functions is up to the states. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution says: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...” The red and blue map we watch on election night is not set in stone; it’s set in state statutes.
Forty-eight states have adopted the “winner-take-all” law. This law, for example, gave then-candidate Donald Trump all of Pennsylvania’s 20 electors the moment he got one vote more than Hillary Clinton inside Pennsylvania.
Winner-take-all is creating problems for states and the country as a whole.
Consider, the winner-take-all rule is why 70% of American voters are ignored, while campaigns shower attention on five to 12 battleground states. In 2016, two-thirds of the general election campaign (spending and events) took place in only six states; 94% was centered in just 12 states.
Ignoring so many voters has an impact beyond campaigns. Florida and other battleground states get more disaster declarations, more federal waivers, more presidentially controlled spending and so on.
The winner-take-all rule is also why the second-place candidate has won the White House twice in our lifetimes.
States are already working to fix the Electoral College. Since 2006, the national popular vote bill has passed in 15 states plus the District of Columbia. These 16 jurisdictions hold 196 electors. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes to reach a majority (270 of 538). The Electoral College would then be guaranteed to follow the popular vote winner because enacting states agree to award their electors to the candidate who’s won the popular vote in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.
Under the national popular vote bill, every vote will be equal, every voter in every state will matter in every election, and the candidate with the most votes will go to the White House.
Opponents of a popular vote have a tough time arguing that votes shouldn’t be equal so they float obscure arguments against states adopting a new law for electors. For instance, they argue that New York and California will somehow swamp all the rest of us—ignoring that these two big states make up only 18% of the country.
Opponents argue we won’t have an official tally of the popular vote. Or that a secretary of state could thwart the country’s ability to have an official tally. Neither argument is accurate because federal regulations (3 U.S. Code § 6) require states to file election totals six days ahead of the meeting of electors. Opponents seem to believe state officials could keep vote totals secret, ignoring the fact that results from the precincts are public and seen by hundreds of poll workers.
These weak arguments have not been persuasive in 16 jurisdictions. It’s time to use the power granted by the U.S. Constitution and award electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once a handful more states join, Americans will elect the president under a system that treats every vote equally and guarantees that the candidate with the most votes is the candidate who goes to the White House.
Christopher Pearson is a second-term Vermont senator. He is on the board of the National Popular Vote Inc.
Reasons to Abolish the Electoral College
It is no longer relevant.
The Constitution has been amended before; it can be done again.
It gives too much attention and power to swing states.
It allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states.
It can ignore the will of the people.
The candidate who wins the most votes does not necessarily win the election,
as happened in 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 and possibly in 1824 and 1960.
https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/debating-the-electoral-college
It's Time to Abolosh the Electoral College
- Darrell M. West
Executive Summary
For years when I taught campaigns and elections at Brown University, I defended the Electoral College as an important part of American democracy. I said the founders created the institution to make sure that large states did not dominate small ones in presidential elections, that power between Congress and state legislatures was balanced, and that there would be checks and balances in the constitutional system.
In recent years, though, I have changed my view and concluded it is time to get rid of the Electoral College. In this paper, I explain the history of the Electoral College, why it no longer is a constructive force in American politics, and why it is time to move to the direct popular election of presidents. Several developments have led me to alter my opinion on this institution: income inequality, geographic disparities, and how discrepancies between the popular vote and Electoral College are likely to become more commonplace given economic and geographic inequities. The remainder of this essay outlines why it is crucial to abolish the Electoral College.
The original rationale for the Electoral College
The framers of the Constitution set up the Electoral College for a number of different reasons. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper Number 68, the body was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia between large and small states. Many of the latter worried that states such as Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would dominate the presidency so they devised an institution where each state had Electoral College votes in proportion to the number of its senators and House members. The former advantaged small states since each state had two senators regardless of its size, while the latter aided large states because the number of House members was based on the state’s population.
In addition, there was considerable discussion regarding whether Congress or state legislatures should choose the chief executive. Those wanting a stronger national government tended to favor Congress, while states’ rights adherents preferred state legislatures. In the end, there was a compromise establishing an independent group chosen by the states with the power to choose the president.
But delegates also had an anti-majoritarian concern in mind. At a time when many people were not well-educated, they wanted a body of wise men (women lacked the franchise) who would deliberate over leading contenders and choose the best man for the presidency. They explicitly rejected a popular vote for president because they did not trust voters to make a wise choice.
How it has functioned in practice
In most elections, the Electoral College has operated smoothly. State voters have cast their ballots and the presidential candidate with the most votes in a particular state has received all the Electoral College votes of that state, except for Maine and Nebraska which allocate votes at the congressional district level within their states.
But there have been several contested elections. The 1800 election deadlocked because presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson received the same number of Electoral College votes as his vice presidential candidate Aaron Burr. At that time, the ballot did not distinguish between Electoral College votes for president and vice president. On the 36th ballot, the House chose Jefferson as the new president. Congress later amended the Constitution to prevent that ballot confusion from happening again.
Just over two decades later, Congress had an opportunity to test the newly established 12th Amendment. All four 1824 presidential aspirants belonged to the same party, the Democratic-Republicans, and although each had local and regional popularity, none of them attained the majority of their party’s Electoral College votes. Andrew Jackson came the closest, with 99 Electoral College votes, followed by John Quincy Adams with 84 votes, William Crawford with 41, and Henry Clay with 37.
Because no candidate received the necessary 131 votes to attain the Electoral College majority, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. As dictated by the 12th Amendment, each state delegation cast one vote among the top three candidates. Since Clay no longer was in the running, he made a deal with Adams to become his secretary of state in return for encouraging congressional support for Adams’ candidacy. Even though Jackson had received the largest number of popular votes, he lost the presidency through what he called a “corrupt bargain” between Clay and Adams.
America was still recovering from the Civil War when Republican Rutherford Hayes ran against Democrat Samuel Tilden in the 1876 presidential election. The race was so close that the electoral votes of just four states would determine the presidency. On Election Day, Tilden picked up the popular vote plurality and 184 electoral votes, but fell one vote short of an Electoral College majority. However, Hayes claimed that his party would have won Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina if not for voter intimidation against African American voters; and in Oregon, one of Hayes’ three electoral votes was in dispute.
Instead of allowing the House to decide the presidential winner, as prescribed by the 12th Amendment, Congress passed a new law to create a bipartisan Electoral Commission. Through this commission, five members each from the House, Senate, and Supreme Court would assign the 20 contested electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon to either Hayes or Tilden. Hayes became president when this Electoral Commission ultimately gave the votes of the four contested states to him. The decision would have far-reaching consequences because in return for securing the votes of the Southern states, Hayes agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, thereby paving the way for vigilante violence against African Americans and the denial of their civil rights.
Allegations of election unfairness also clouded the 2000 race. The contest between Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore was extremely close, ultimately resting on the fate of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. Ballot controversies in Palm Beach County complicated vote tabulation. It used the “butterfly ballot” design, which some decried as visually confusing. Additionally, other Florida counties that required voters to punch perforated paper ballots had difficulty discerning the voters’ choices if they did not fully detach the appropriate section of the perforated paper.
Accordingly, on December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in counties that reported statistically significant numbers of undervotes. The Bush campaign immediately filed suit, and in response, the U.S. Supreme Court paused manual recounts to hear oral arguments from candidates. On December 10, in a landmark 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Florida Supreme Court’s recount decision, ruling that a manual recount would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Bush won Florida’s Electoral College votes and thus the presidency even though Gore had won the popular vote by almost half a million votes.
The latest controversy arose when Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost three million ballots yet won the Electoral College by 74 votes. That made him the fifth U.S. chief executive to become president without winning the popular vote. This discrepancy between the Electoral College and the popular vote created considerable contentiousness about the electoral system. It set the Trump presidency off on a rough start and generated a critical tone regarding his administration.
The faithless elector problem
In addition to the problems noted above, the Electoral College suffers from another difficulty known as the “faithless elector” issue in which that body’s electors cast their ballot in opposition to the dictates of their state’s popular vote. Samuel Miles, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, was the first of this genre as for unknown reasons, he cast his vote in 1796 for the Democratic-Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson, even though his own Federalist party candidate John Adams had won Pennsylvania’s popular vote.
Miles turned out to be the first of many. Throughout American history, 157 electors have voted contrary to their state’s chosen winner. Some of these individuals dissented for idiosyncratic reasons, but others did so because they preferred the losing party’s candidate. The precedent set by these people creates uncertainty about how future Electoral College votes could proceed.
This possibility became even more likely after a recent court decision. In the 2016 election, seven electors defected from the dictates of their state’s popular vote. This was the highest number in any modern election. A Colorado lawsuit challenged the legality of state requirements that electors follow the vote of their states, something which is on the books in 29 states plus the District of Columbia. In the Baca v. Hickenlooper case, a federal court ruled that states cannot penalize faithless electors, no matter the intent of the elector or the outcome of the state vote.
Bret Chiafalo and plaintiff Michael Baca were state electors who began the self-named “Hamilton Electors” movement in which they announced their desire to stop Trump from winning the presidency. Deriving their name from Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, they convinced a few members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for other Republican candidates, such as John Kasich or Mitt Romney. When Colorado decided to nullify Baca’s vote, he sued. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Colorado’s decision to remove Baca’s vote was unconstitutional since the founders were explicit about the constitutional rights of electors to vote independently. Based on this legal ruling and in a highly polarized political environment where people have strong feelings about various candidates, it is possible that future faithless electors could tip the presidency one way or another, thereby nullifying the popular vote.
Why the Electoral College is poorly suited for an era of high income inequality and widespread geographic disparities
The problems outlined above illustrate the serious issues facing the Electoral College. Having a president who loses the popular vote undermines electoral legitimacy. Putting an election into the House of Representatives where each state delegation has one vote increases the odds of insider dealings and corrupt decisions. Allegations of balloting irregularities that require an Electoral Commission to decide the votes of contested states do not make the general public feel very confident about the integrity of the process. And faithless electors could render the popular vote moot in particular states.
Yet there is a far more fundamental threat facing the Electoral College. At a time of high income inequality and substantial geographical disparities across states, there is a risk that the Electoral College will systematically overrepresent the views of relatively small numbers of people due to the structure of the Electoral College. As currently constituted, each state has two Electoral College votes regardless of population size, plus additional votes to match its number of House members. That format overrepresents small- and medium-sized states at the expense of large states.
That formula is problematic at a time when a Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program study found that 15 percent of American counties generate 64 percent of America’s gross domestic product. Most of the country’s economic activity is on the East Coast, West Coast, and a few metropolitan areas in between. The prosperous parts of America include about 15 states having 30 senators while the less prosperous areas encapsulate 35 states having 70 senators.
Those numbers demonstrate the fundamental mismatch between economic vitality and political power. Through the Electoral College (and the U.S. Senate), the 35 states with smaller economic activity have disproportionate power to choose presidents and dictate public policy. This institutional relic from two centuries ago likely will fuel continued populism and regular discrepancies between the popular and Electoral College votes. Rather than being a historic aberration, presidents who lose the popular vote could become the norm and thereby usher in an anti-majoritarian era where small numbers of voters in a few states use their institutional clout in “left-behind” states to block legislation desired by large numbers of people.
Support for direct popular election
For years, a majority of Americans have opposed the Electoral College. For example, in 1967, 58 percent favored its abolition, while in 1981, 75 percent of Americans did so. More recent polling, however, has highlighted a dangerous development in public opinion. Americans by and large still want to do away with the Electoral College, but there now is a partisan divide in views, with Republicans favoring it while Democrats oppose it.
For instance, POLITICO and Morning Consult conducted a poll in March 2019 that found that 50 percent of respondents wanted a direct popular vote, 34 percent did not, and 16 percent did not demonstrate a preference. Two months later, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reported polling that 53 percent of Americans wanted a direct popular vote, while 43 percent wanted to keep the status quo. These sentiments undoubtably have been reinforced by the fact that in two of the last five presidential elections, the candidate winning the popular vote lost the Electoral College.
Yet there are clear partisan divisions in these sentiments. In 2000, while the presidential election outcome was still being litigated, a Gallup survey reported that 73 percent of Democratic respondents supported a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct popular voting, but only 46 percent of Republican respondents supported that view. This gap has since widened as after the 2016 election, 81 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans affirmatively answered the same question.
The March POLITICO and Morning Consult poll also found that 72 percent of Democratic respondents and 30 percent of Republican respondents endorsed a direct popular vote. Likewise, the NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll found that 78 percent of Hillary Clinton voters supported a national popular vote, while 74 percent of Trump voters preferred the Electoral College.
Ways to abolish the Electoral College
The U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College but did not spell out how the votes get awarded to presidential candidates. That vagueness has allowed some states such as Maine and Nebraska to reject “winner-take-all” at the state level and instead allocate votes at the congressional district level. However, the Constitution’s lack of specificity also presents the opportunity that states could allocate their Electoral College votes through some other means.
One such mechanism that a number of states already support is an interstate pact that honors the national popular vote. Since 2008, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which is an multi-state agreement to commit electors to vote for candidates who win the nationwide popular vote, even if that candidate loses the popular vote within their state. The NPVIC would become effective only if states ratify it to reach an electoral majority of 270 votes.
Right now, the NPVIC is well short of that goal and would require an additional 74 electoral votes to take effect. It also faces some particular challenges. First, it is unclear how voters would respond if their state electors collectively vote against the popular vote of their state. Second, there are no binding legal repercussions if a state elector decides to defect from the national popular vote. Third, given the Tenth Circuit decision in the Baca v. Hickenlooper case described above, the NPVIC is almost certain to face constitutional challenges should it ever gain enough electoral votes to go into effect.
A more permanent solution would be to amend the Constitution itself. That is a laborious process and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College would require significant consensus—at least two-thirds affirmation from both the House and Senate, and approval from at least 38 out of 50 states. But Congress has nearly reached this threshold in the past. Congress nearly eradicated the Electoral College in 1934, falling just two Senate votes short of passage.
However, the conversation did not end after the unsuccessful vote, legislators have continued to debate ending or reforming the Electoral College since. In 1979, another Senate vote to establish a direct popular vote failed, this time by just three votes. Nonetheless, conversation continued: the 95th Congress proposed a total of 41 relevant amendments in 1977 and 1978, and the 116th Congress has already introduced three amendments to end the Electoral College. In total, over the last two centuries, there have been over 700 proposals to either eradicate or seriously modify the Electoral College. It is time to move ahead with abolishing the Electoral College before its clear failures undermine public confidence in American democracy, distort the popular will, and create a genuine constitutional crisis.
Darrell M. West
Senior Fellow - Center for Technology Innovation
Douglas Dillon Chair in Governmental Studies - @DarrWest
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
https://www.vox.com/21142223/electoral-college-2020-election-jesse-wegman
The Electoral College – Top 3 Pros and Cons
https://www.procon.org/headlines/electoral-college-pros-cons-procon-org/
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/should-we-abolish-the-electoral-college
