Opinion: The Electoral College - A Burden of the Past

By Olivia DeFalco (2021 Contest Submission)

True democracy; government by the people and rule of the majority. Yet, the Electoral College, established in 1788 in Article II of the United States Constitution, hinders the United States’ ability to become a true democracy due to the fact that it promotes a winner take all system, sacrificing the will of people and equality of all votes. These faults in the electoral college ultimately reflect an outdated system that does not correlate with current society. If the electoral college is reformed into the National Popular Vote plan, then the United States’ election system would lean towards a truer democracy, in terms of the will of the people and the popular vote.

One thing is clear when addressing the electoral college: if the electoral college system remains the same, then the power is not always guaranteed to rest in the hands of the people regarding elections. When looking at the initial establishment of the electoral college in the U.S Constitution, it depicts a winner take all system, “a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...The Person having the greatest Number of (electoral)Votes shall be the President” (Article II Section 1) Essentially, with a winner take all system, when a candidate gets the majority of votes in a specific state, then they receive all the electoral votes from that state, which is dependant on the number of representatives and senators from said state. Not only does it neglect the minority votes in each state but further introduces faults in the greater voting system of the electoral college especially regarding true democracy which pose the need for reform.

If the electoral college has stayed consistent since the Founding Fathers created it, then the reasons for creating the electoral college must be relevant in today’s society, however this is not the case. For instance, one of the original reasons for the electoral college was to safeguard against uneducated or ignorant voters by ultimately putting the final decision in the hands of electors that supposedly would have a more informed opinion to make the best decision for the country, this reasoning is depicted in Federalist Paper #64 by John Jay, as he describes that the electoral college would be “composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens”. The creators of the electoral college clearly aimed to assure that only the finest citizens could have the true power to elect the president, however this reasoning is no longer relevant in our current society. Undoubtedly, our society has made many advancements since 1787 and modern technology allows voters to get the necessary information needed to make informed decisions regarding presidential candidates in a way that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Electoral college, the Founding Fathers. Moreover, the Founding Fathers were afraid of true democracy. In the Federalists Papers #68, Alexander Hamilton describes that the purpose of the constitution is “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Hamilton almost contradicts himself here as he states that the point of the electoral college is to protect “the sense of the people,” however, at the same time, its purpose is to ensure that the power to choose the president is in the hands of educated and informed people. Given that our current society values democracy and in return values the equality of all persons regarding voting, Hamilton’s reasoning for the electoral college is irrelevant in current society in saying that men with the power to vote for the President should have “requisite qualifications.” Ultimately, when questioning the integrity of the current electoral system, reflecting on the causes and reasoning behind the system unveils the fact that these causes are no longer relevant in today's society. Therefore, what’s posed is the need for reform to better fit a modern society who values democracy and the will of the people.

Moreover, in our current society, the faults of the electoral college interfere with the U.S’s ability to be a true democracy, creating an imbalance of power between states and ignoring the will of the people. Reflecting on past U.S elections, it is apparent that 5 out of the 45 presidents of the United States have won using the majority of electoral votes, but not the popular vote of the people. Most recently, this can be seen in the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, Clinton earning the popular vote of 65,853,514 votes, while Trump earned a fewer 62,984,828 votes. However, their total electoral votes didn’t reflect the people’s vote; Trump earned 304 votes compared to Clinton’s 227 votes. A true democracy rests its power in the hands of the people, however the will of the people is completely neglected as Clinton gained nearly 3 million more votes than Trump and the results did not reflect that. Since the President of the United States essentially represents our country and in return the people of the country, if the president elected fails to reflect the needs and or wants of the people and in return does not gain the popular vote, it lays the foundation for a corrupt and unjust presidency. The lack of correlation between electoral votes and the popular vote in the electoral college should be reason for reform to the system to strive for a truer democracy.

Along with this, the electoral system distorts the presidential campaign by granting too much power to states known as ‘swing states’, states that could reasonably be won by either presidential candidate by a swing in votes. Using data from the 2012 presidential election, the impact of states impact over the electoral college lacked uniformity, “73,189 voters providing the margin of victory in Florida’s 2012 presidential election were almost 12 times more influential in the overall Electoral College math than each of the 122,473 voters providing the margin of victory in Rhode Island’s 2012 presidential election.” Florida being one of the most apparent swing states, illustrates the unbalance of influence between the states, made possible by the electoral college. If swing states have more influence over the election than others, it is clear that not every vote is equal throughout the states. This inequality depicts yet another casualty of a failed election system.

Further, swing states distort presidential campaigns by creating a system where it’s strategic for candidates to only pay attention to a limited number of states that can swing one way or another, ignoring states candidates can’t lose or can’t win, “Half of the 96 presidential campaign events so far have been in just 5 states..Meanwhile, 33 states have been totally ignored.” Since swing (battleground) states hold more influence and power over the election, it is a given that 2020 presidential candidates would only campaign in those specific states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia). However, this fragmented campaign system only allows for the gap of inequality between non-swing states and swing states to increase as now campaigning isn't even equal, mirroring the value of votes across the country which in theory is not democratic at all. Between the distortion of presidential campaigns and the blatant ignorance of popular vote and the will of the people, it is clear that the electoral college needs to be reformed.

In order to reform the electoral college in terms of popular vote and swing states, the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan must be considered to further the United States as a true democracy. While the current ‘winner take all’ electoral system produces anti-democratic election outcomes, the National Popular Vote plan puts the power back in the hands of the people, “The NPV plan guarantees election of the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” By guaranteeing that the candidate who wins the popular vote will win the presidential election, it solves the problem of ignoring the will of the people, as seen in the current system. By preserving the will of the people it creates a more democratic election system to fit the values of the American people, such as liberty and making everyone’s vote equal. Consequently, following the National Popular Vote plan would also reestablish the balance between swing states and other states' influence over the election, “it would force candidates to spend time engaging with voters in all 50 states, instead of in just a handful swing states.” By utilizing the NPV plan, more states would have the possibility of becoming competitive again and therefore swing states would have less influence over the election than they do now. Further, this would destroy the gap between states regarding campaigning and move towards becoming more of a democracy with equality for all votes. With more balance between the states, the NPV plan could mend the distorted presidential campaign system.

In summary, the current electoral college system is outdated; not reflecting modern society, therefore acting anti-democratically by neglecting the will of the people. These faults call for reform which can be accomplished with the National Popular Vote plan by restoring the power in the popular vote, the will of the people and balancing out the influence between non-swing states and swing states. These steps to progress and obtain a truer democracy are not so far away as 15 states and the District of Columbia have already signed on to the NPV plan, delivering 196 electoral votes out of the 270 votes needed for it to take place, providing hope for positive and democratic change within a faulted system.

Works Cited:

United States Constitution. Article II, Sec. I.

“Election and Voting Information.” FEC.gov, 2016, www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/election-and-voting-information/.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68, in The Federalist, ed. 1788

John Jay, Federalist No. 64, in The Federalist, ed. 1788

Duquette, Christopher; Mixon, Franklin; Cebula, Richard. Atlantic Economic Journal. Mar2017

Koza, John R. “33 States Totally Ignored in First 5 Weeks of General-Election Campaign.” National Popular Vote, 30 Aug. 2016, www.nationalpopularvote.com/33-states-totally-ignored-first-5-weeks-general-election-campain.

FairVote.org. “What Is the National Popular Vote Plan?” FairVote, www.fairvote.org/what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan.