Many are aware that the positions of president and vice president are not determined by a direct popular vote, but through a system known as the Electoral College. Unlike other political contests in the U.S. decided by popular vote, this “winner takes all” mechanism means that states conduct their own elections for president. Regardless of how close the race is, the candidate who wins a state’s majority receives all of that state’s electoral votes. For instance, if a state has a close vote of 50.1% to 49.9%, the candidate with the slight edge claims 100% of the electoral votes, effectively nullifying the votes of the losing side. This is the essence of the Electoral College.
A Brief Background on the Electoral College
The Electoral College is recognized as one of the notable “compromises” in American history, established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by the nation’s founding fathers. They aimed to create a process for selecting a president that would keep the presidency separate from Congress and protect it from political corruption. The notion of popular democracy was relatively new, and many framers were apprehensive about granting potentially uninformed citizens the power to choose their leaders. Some believed the president should be chosen by Congress, state governors, or state legislatures, while others advocated for direct elections. The Electoral College emerged as a middle ground.
As part of this compromise, southern slaveholding states, feeling disadvantaged due to their smaller populations, negotiated that enslaved individuals would be counted in determining the number of electoral votes each state would have. This led to the infamous 3/5ths compromise, where each enslaved person counted as three-fifths of a free individual, thus boosting the representation of slaveholding states.
Despite the historical context, the question remains: Is the Electoral College still necessary? Are there valid reasons to retain it? Let’s address some of the most common arguments for its continuation.
Without the Electoral College, Candidates Would Ignore Smaller States
One of the frequent arguments for keeping the Electoral College is that without it, candidates would focus solely on populous areas, neglecting rural regions. However, this argument overlooks the reality that candidates already concentrate their efforts on the states they believe are pivotal, primarily the 12 swing states, while the remaining 38 states are largely ignored.
Additionally, with the rise of digital campaigning, the need for in-person rallies is diminished. If a voter relies solely on rallies for information about candidates, they may have greater issues than feeling overlooked.
Less Populous States Would Lose Representation
Critics argue that eliminating the Electoral College would result in smaller states being underrepresented in government decisions. However, it is crucial to recognize that the United States operates as a republic, not a direct democracy. Each state has representation in Congress, with two senators per state and representatives based on population.
When it comes to the presidency, the role is to represent the country as a whole, not individual states. Therefore, every vote should hold equal weight, which can only be achieved through a popular vote.
Isn’t It Unfair for Coastal Areas to Dominate Presidential Elections?
Opponents of abolishing the Electoral College often claim it would disenfranchise voters in less populous regions. Yet, the current system already leads to significant disenfranchisement. Voters in non-swing states who vote against the majority effectively see their votes rendered meaningless. For instance, in Florida, many Biden supporters saw all electoral votes go to Trump, despite a substantial portion of voters supporting Biden.
The Electoral College Lowers Voter Turnout
The U.S. consistently ranks low in voter turnout among developed democracies. This trend is exacerbated by the Electoral College, which leads many to believe their votes don’t matter, especially if they reside in non-swing states. The system also discourages states from encouraging marginalized groups to vote, as voter numbers do not influence the allocation of electoral votes.
Why Not Proportional Allotment of Electoral Votes?
Proportional allotment is often dismissed due to concerns about gerrymandering and the challenges faced by smaller states in accommodating such a system. States with fewer electoral votes may struggle to provide adequate representation for third-party candidates, perpetuating the dominance of the two-party system.
Does the Electoral College Prevent Charismatic Yet Unqualified Leaders?
In reality, the Electoral College can contribute to the election of unqualified leaders, as recent events have demonstrated. The framers of the Constitution established checks and balances to prevent power abuse, but the Electoral College itself can be manipulated.
What Are Our Alternatives?
One alternative gaining traction is ranked choice voting (RCV), where voters rank candidates by preference. This method could potentially disrupt the two-party system and allow for a greater diversity of candidates to emerge. Another option is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award electoral votes based on the national popular vote, circumventing the need for a constitutional amendment.
For more information on this topic, check out our other blog posts, such as this one on home insemination and the excellent resource on pregnancy. You can also learn more about transgender parents at this authority site.
Summary
The Electoral College, initially created as a compromise, may no longer serve its intended purpose. It leads to significant disenfranchisement, lowers voter turnout, and can perpetuate the dominance of two major parties. Alternatives like ranked choice voting and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact offer routes for a more representative electoral process.