Introduction
Elections are at the heart of any democracy, where citizens self-govern under a democratic system. For instance, in the United States, people select candidates and leaders to represent them in government (Ginsberg et al. 1011). In a significant sense, the presidential election differs from other elections in that voters do not directly elect the president.
Long ago, countries frequently adopted indirect elections in which voters picked members of an intermediate body, namely, a nominating committee, who would then choose public officials (Ginsberg et al. 1038). The electoral college, the body of electors who formally pick the president and vice president, is the final remnant of this procedure in the United States (Ginsberg et al. 1038). Furthermore, no other country in the world elects its president through an electoral college. The Electoral College is an outdated and archaic system that occasionally produces outcomes contradictory to the preferences of the majority of American voters; it should be modernized through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Historical Perspective
The Electoral College is one election regulation that significantly impacts the campaign strategies of presidential contenders. This criterion forces them to focus extensively on a limited number of battlegrounds or swing states—those with nearly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans—while neglecting the rest of the country (Ginsberg et al. 1056). The Electoral College was established in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers in 1787 as a compromise between electing the president through a vote in Congress and electing the president by a popular vote of qualified individuals (Electoral College History; Lau).
Nevertheless, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution (Electoral College History). Additionally, changing the Electoral College procedure would require a constitutional amendment because it is built into the original design of the United States Constitution. The Electoral College has racist underpinnings — when it was created, it used the three-fifths provision, which offered slave states in the South a long-term electoral advantage. Hence, it continued to weaken the political power of people of color (Lau). The Electoral College encourages presidential candidates to concentrate on a limited number of swing states.
These dynamics have sparked discussion over the system’s democratic legitimacy. For instance, the northern and southern states had similar demographics during the Constitutional Convention. On the other hand, nonvoting enslaved people comprised around one-third of the southern states’ populace (Lau). The deal assured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and granted Virginia, which housed over 200,000 enslaved people, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes necessary to win the presidency (46) (Roos).
Consequently, Southern delegates objected to direct popular vote in presidential races, which would have given their states less electoral representation. The Electoral College continues to reduce Black voters’ political power nowadays (Lau). Since the density of black people is higher in the South, their chosen presidential candidate is nearly certain to lose the electoral votes of their home states.
The Availability of Candidates’ Information
When voters decide a Presidential election, they are essentially voting for the electors’ slate who have pledged to vote for that ticket in the Electoral College. Most states demand that the candidate with the highest votes in that state get all electoral votes (Electoral College Fast Facts). Following the certification of each state’s popular vote by state election officials, the successful slate of electors meets in the state capital (Electoral College Fast Facts). Hence, it casts two ballots—one for Vice President and one for President. The availability of information on each candidate remains essential in today’s electoral process.
Electoral College vs. Popular Vote
To succeed, a U.S. presidential candidate must gain a majority of the electoral college votes, with each state receiving a specific number of votes depending on the size of its congressional delegation (Ginsberg et al. 860). When Americans vote for president, they do not vote for candidates, even though they mark their ballots as such (Ginsberg et al. 1038). They are instead picking from slates of electors chosen by each party in the state who have vowed to support that party’s presidential candidate if elected. Each state receives electors based on the size of its congressional delegation, for example, the number of senators plus House members. Hence, the Electoral College favors large-population states while underrepresenting small-population states (Ginsberg et al. 1038). For instance, one vote in California is worth roughly one-third of a vote in North Dakota under the electoral college system.
Because electoral votes are gained on a state-by-state basis, a person who obtains the most popular votes nationwide may need more states for their electoral votes to sum up to a majority. This situation has occurred four times in the history of elections (Ginsberg et al. 1039). For instance, Rutherford B. Hayes prevailed in the electoral college despite obtaining fewer popular votes than Samuel Tilden in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison did the same in 1888. The third example was the 2000 election, when the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore awarded George W. Bush Florida’s electoral votes and the presidency, despite Al Gore receiving 500,000 more popular votes. The fourth occurrence occurred in 2016, when Hillary Clinton received over three million more votes than Donald Trump, although Trump won the Electoral College majority.
Because the Constitution permits states to determine how to elect their representatives, reform of the system is a conceivable option. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV) is one recent reform initiative (Ginsberg et al. 1039). When the presidential election results are ready, there are two different outcomes: the Electoral College and the popular vote. The popular vote determines which candidate obtained the total votes. For instance, Colorado, New Mexico, Delaware, and Oregon were the states that rejected the Electoral College and joined the NPV in 2019 (Cohen). Except for Maine and Nebraska, each state has allocated its electoral votes to the victor of the popular vote in that state since the nineteenth century (Cohen).
Nevertheless, under the NPV system, each state’s electoral college votes would be given to the candidate who received the most votes nationally, regardless of whether the candidate received a plurality of votes in that state (Ginsberg et al. 1039). In other words, the NPV would technically preserve the Electoral College while rendering it obsolete, ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote also becomes the president. If implemented, the NPV would encourage presidential candidates to expand their campaign efforts nationwide rather than focusing solely on a limited number of swing states. According to a 2020 Pew Research Center study, 58% of respondents support a system in which the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins the presidency. A nationwide popular vote has been repeatedly supported by the public (Lau).
The Compact will take effect only if states with at least 270 electoral votes join. The NPV states would guarantee that the national popular vote winner becomes president in the election once that threshold is attained (Cohen). Therefore, while the Compact does not abolish the Electoral College, it ensures that the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College are the same.
Moreover, the Electoral College is one of the most unusual – and undemocratic – aspects of American governance. It was initially drafted into the Constitution to counteract direct democracy. For instance, many of the Constitution’s founders were wary of handing power to the people, so they designed the Electoral College as a democratic backdoor. The Electoral College was also intended to limit the power of slave states. Southern slave states wielded enormous power in picking the president thanks to a law that classified enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for congressional representation (Cohen). Despite the extension of suffrage and the elimination of slavery, the system has persisted.
Conclusion
To conclude, the Electoral College is an outdated system that periodically generates results that contravene the choices of the majority of American voters, and it should be reformed through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The Electoral College’s flaw is that the elector count based on congressional delegations continues to provide residents in smaller states with disproportionate voting power.
At the same time, the popular vote indicates which candidate received the most votes overall. The election outcomes can weaken the popular vote under the Electoral College system. Therefore, the solution is NPV, which seeks to improve the undemocratic Electoral College. Every vote would demonstrate equal merit under the NPV, motivating candidates to connect with voters in every state.
Works Cited
Cohen, Alex. “The National Popular Vote, Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, 2020.
“Electoral College Fast Facts.” History, Art & Archives.
“Electoral College History.” National Archives, 2019.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al. We the People. 13th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2021.
Lau, Tim. “The Electoral College, Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, 2023.
Roos, Dave. “The Founding Fathers Had to Compromise When It Came to Devising a System to Elect the President.” History, 2020.