The United States is one of the few democracies in the world where the winner of the popular vote may not always win the presidency. This is due to the Electoral College, a system that has been the subject of much debate and controversy since its inception. While some view it as a cornerstone of American federalism, others see it as an outdated relic that undermines the will of the people. To better understand this debate, it is important to explore the history, purpose, and ongoing relevance of the Electoral College in contrast to the popular vote.
The Origins of the Electoral College
The Electoral College was established in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The Founding Fathers were tasked with creating a system of government that balanced the interests of both large and small states, while also safeguarding against the potential pitfalls of direct democracy. At the time, there was considerable debate over how the president should be chosen.
The framers of the Constitution feared that allowing the people to directly elect the president could lead to what they called “mob rule” or the tyranny of the majority. They were concerned that voters might be swayed by demagogues or fail to have the information necessary to make an informed decision about a candidate in such a large and diverse country. Furthermore, the framers wanted to protect the interests of smaller states and ensure that their voices were not drowned out by the larger, more populous states.
To address these concerns, the framers devised the Electoral College as a compromise. Rather than having a direct popular vote to determine the president, they established a system in which electors—representatives of each state—would cast the official votes for president. Each state was allocated a number of electors equal to its total number of representatives in Congress (the sum of its senators and House representatives). This meant that states with larger populations had more electors, but smaller states were still given a significant voice by having at least three electors (two senators and one House member).
How the Electoral College Works
Under the Electoral College system, voters in each state cast their ballots not directly for a presidential candidate but for a slate of electors pledged to that candidate. Most states operate under a “winner-takes-all” system, meaning that whichever candidate receives the majority of the popular vote in that state wins all of its electoral votes. However, two states—Maine and Nebraska—use a proportional system, where electoral votes are divided based on the vote share in each congressional district.
To win the presidency, a candidate must secure a majority of the electoral votes, which currently stands at 270 out of 538. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the decision is made by the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote for president.
The Electoral College has resulted in several instances where a candidate who won the popular vote nationwide did not win the presidency. This happened most notably in the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, and again in 2016 when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
The Purpose of the Electoral College
The Electoral College was designed to achieve several key purposes, some of which remain relevant today, while others are viewed as outdated. The framers believed that electors would act as a safeguard, using their judgment to prevent the election of a candidate who might be unfit or dangerous to the country. This concept, however, has largely disappeared over time, as electors today are expected to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, making the process more of a formality.
Another central purpose of the Electoral College was to strike a balance between the interests of large and small states. By giving smaller states a minimum of three electoral votes, the system ensures that they have a voice in the election, even though their populations may be much smaller than those of states like California or Texas. In this sense, the Electoral College reflects the federalist structure of the U.S. government, where both state and national interests are represented.
The system also encourages candidates to focus on winning states, rather than simply racking up votes in the most populous areas. In theory, this means that candidates must campaign across the country and address the concerns of voters in both urban and rural areas. However, in practice, the Electoral College has led to the phenomenon of “swing states,” where only a handful of competitive states receive most of the candidates’ attention, while many states are effectively ignored if their outcome is seen as a foregone conclusion.
The Popular Vote: A Push for Change
Despite the historical rationale for the Electoral College, there is a growing movement in the U.S. to switch to a system that relies on the popular vote to determine the presidency. Supporters of the popular vote argue that the Electoral College undermines the principle of “one person, one vote,” as it gives disproportionate influence to voters in swing states while effectively sidelining voters in safe states. Critics also point out that the winner-takes-all system in most states can lead to situations where a candidate who wins a narrow victory in a few key states can still lose the popular vote but win the presidency, as happened in 2016.
Advocates for abolishing the Electoral College argue that a popular vote system would be more democratic, ensuring that every vote carries the same weight regardless of where it is cast. This system, they argue, would also lead to more equitable campaigning, as candidates would have an incentive to campaign in all parts of the country, rather than focusing on a small number of battleground states.
Ongoing Debate and the Future of the Electoral College
The debate over the Electoral College versus the popular vote is unlikely to end anytime soon. The process of amending the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College would require widespread political support, including approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Given that smaller states benefit from the current system, it is unlikely that they would support such a change.
In recent years, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has emerged as a potential workaround. Under this agreement, states pledge to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in their own state. The compact would only take effect once enough states join to total 270 electoral votes, effectively ensuring that the popular vote determines the presidency. As of now, several states have joined the compact, but it still falls short of the necessary threshold.
In conclusion, the Electoral College has served as a central feature of U.S. presidential elections since the founding of the republic. While it was designed to balance competing interests and protect against the risks of direct democracy, critics argue that it no longer serves the needs of modern American society. As debates over fairness, representation, and democracy continue, the future of the Electoral College remains uncertain.
I want to know what you think!
Send me your views, thoughts or what’s on your mind and we will feature on our newsletter or show!
Email to [email protected] OR
Leave a text, voice note or voicemail for the show on what your thoughts are at 708-982-0974
Connect with me on Spreely Social CLICK HERE to Check out Spreely Social
And don’t forget to watch us LIVE weekdays at 1p est! CLICK HERE to Watch The Rants of Izzo Show!
-Izzo
