Abolishing the Electoral College
Introduction
The Electoral College has existed ever since the framers founded the Constitution in
1787, even though the name ‘Electoral College’ does not exist in the Constitution itself. The
process was established because the founders desired a different method to elect the President
which wasn’t by the popular vote system. They opted for creating a system where the people’s
electors elected the American President, rather than directly by the people. Essentially, the
Electoral College is a group of electors that is chosen by voting citizens with the responsibility to
cast ballots for the President. However, since the year 1800, there have been higher than 700
proposals to abolish the Electoral College. This paper will outline the process of the Electoral
College, why it was created in the first place, the problems it creates for American democracy,
alternatives to the process, and why it hasn’t yet been abolished. This paper argues that the
Electoral College is an antiquated system that should be replaced with the NPVIC.
The Process of the Electoral College
The Electoral College comprises of 538 electors. Every state (plus the District of
Columbia that has three electoral votes) has electors that is equivalent to its congressional
delegation which includes the number of representatives of in house and senators that they
possess. How the seats are assigned in the Electoral College is like how they are assigned in the
House of Representatives. An absolute majority of 270 plus electoral votes is required to win a
presidential election. Electors are chosen through a two-part process, where political parties first
select panels of possible electors prior to the general election and then the State’s voters choose
the electors in the general election when they vote for the Presidential candidate where the names
of the electors might be visible on the ballot, dependent on the State. Then the Presidential
candidate that wins have their potential electors appointed as the State’s electors. The winner of
the popular vote in the state then receives all of the state’s electoral votes, enforcing the winnerthe-all system of the Electoral College. However, this does not occur in Nebraska and Maine,
where the State victor is given two electors and the congressional district winner is given one
elector, allowing these two states to grant electors to more than only one candidate. The electors
then vote for the President on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December. If no
candidate receives the majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives will vote for the
President and the Senate will vote for the Vice-President (occurred only once in 1824).
The electors are under no federal law that necessitates them to vote for the winner of their
State’s popular vote. However, there are a few states that require electors to vote according to the
popular vote, which could be required by State law or by pledges to parties to vote for that
party’s candidate. Some states have laws in place that fine or disqualify electors who casts an
invalid vote. In 2020, the Supreme Court declared that all States have the option to pass
conditions on electors. However, as we can see, these restrictions are not across the board, States
having disparities when it comes to how electors are allowed to vote.
Why did the Framers create the Electoral College?
Before I delve deeper into the problems that the Electoral College creates and why the
process should be abolished, it is important to understand why the Electoral College was created
in the first place. To begin with, the framer’s wanted to avoid the process of election by popular
vote because they wanted to avoid a majoritarian system. They didn’t have faith in regular
American citizens to be educated enough to make prudent decisions, therefore they desired a
panel of men who would select the most suitable man for the presidency. Another reason was
that they wanted to distribute the power to elect a President of the United States across all 50
states, ensuring that states with larger populations didn’t prevail over states with smaller
populations. The system of proportionate Electoral College votes to the number of senators and
House members was beneficial to small and large states since every state had two senators
despite size, benefitting small states, whilst House members was based on population, benefitting
large states. In turn, power was steadied between the national and state governments,
contributing to the essential ‘checks and balances’ between the national and state governments
that is essential to American democracy. The Electoral College served as a compromise to all
these factors.
Why it should be abolished?
Faithless Electors
To begin with, the Electoral College creates what is called the ‘faithless elector’, which
occurs when a pledged body’s electors cast their vote for the candidate who did not win that
state’s popular vote. They do not vote for the candidate who they have pledged to vote for. Some
states do have consequences for faithless electors like penalties, party censure, and fines. There
are at least 32 states and the District of Columbia that attempted to bind electoral votes through
implementing laws. Faithless Electors are rare, but there have been 157 faithless electors in the
history of America. They create uncertainty about how future electoral votes will be set into
motion and creates a risky precedent. Even though faithless electors haven’t altered the outcome
of a Presidential election in the past, there is the possibility of them having a significant impact
on close elections. For example, in the 2000 election race between Democrat Al Gore and
Republican George Bush was extremely close and ended up being reliant on the 25 electoral
votes of Florida. In elections like this, the unfairness of an election can be put into question,
which resulted in Florida’s Supreme Court wanting to do a manual recount of the votes.
However, the Bush campaign filed a suit, resulting in the Supreme court decision to overrun the
recount. Bush won Florida and the Presidency, despite Al Gore winning the popular vote by a
large margin of more or less half a million votes. In the 2016 election race between Republican
Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, there were seven electors who did not vote for
their state’s popular vote candidate’s winner. This was a concerning number in present-day
elections. As a result, in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states can require electors to act in
accordance with their popular vote result.
Winner of Popular Vote is not guaranteed Presidency
Hence what occurs is that a candidate wins the Presidency without winning the popular
vote. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump lost the popular vote by around three million votes but
won the Presidency because he won the Electoral College by 74 voters. A number of issues
arises when this happens. Firstly, a candidate who lost the popular vote shouldn’t win the
Presidency considering it isn’t a representation of what American citizens want. America was
built on the representation of the people and when this discrepancy occurs, it goes against this
value, frustrating the will of the people. Possessing a President that has lost the popular vote
compromises electoral legitimacy. It creates public unrest, and the administration would begin on
a turbulent note. American citizens would have less faith in the integrity of the entire process and
would suspect corruption. With the Electoral College system, it is possible for a candidate to win
the Presidency if they won plurality of the popular votes in 11 large states and 1 middle to small
state, whilst losing the popular vote in the leftover 38 states, evidently not being a clear
representation of the American people.
Minority Rule
Furthermore, the Electoral College seemingly overrepresents the decisions of a small
groups of people because of the foundational structure of the electoral college. The structure of
how electoral votes is distributed overrepresents small states at the cost of large states since each
state gets two electoral votes for regardless of size. There is a lack of congruence between
economic productivity and political influence, where 35 states with less economic activity
inordinately have more power to elect the President. This creates an anti-majoritarian process,
since the few states who have a disproportionate amount of power can block legislation that is
wanted by more people. The Electoral College also gives swing states a lot of power, which is
where presidential campaigns direct most of their attention. Swing states aren’t the best
representation of the country as a whole, yet they receive most of the attention and make most of
the difference in elections. This results in candidates focusing on a few select areas, which was
exactly what the electoral college was set out to put a stop to.
The Electoral College is an antiquated system that still possesses the effects of the ThreeFifths compromise that decided the congressional representation plus the electors for Presidency.
Alternatives
Several alternatives to the Electoral College process have been explored, considering 700
proposals to abolish the Electoral College have been made and majority of the American
population is opposed to it. 63% of U.S adults want the system changed so that the winner of the
nationwide popular vote can be President, whilst only 35% would prefer the prevailing Electoral
College system (Pew Research Center, 2022). The only way to alter the process of the Electoral
College would be through a Constitutional Amendment because it is in the U.S Constitution.
National Popular Vote Plan
The NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact), is a consensus amongst 15
states and the District of Columbia to give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the
national popular vote. If this system is implemented, it could be a replacement for the Electoral
College process. However, for this compact to take over the Electoral College, the accumulative
electoral votes need to be equal to or more than the 270 votes needed to win a Presidency. As of
2020, 196 votes have been accumulated through the 15 states and District of Columbia.
The NPVIC would alleviate the problem where candidates disproportionately focus most
of their attention on campaigning in swing states, which in itself is unbalanced. With the NPVIC
in place, candidates would be encouraged to visit not just swing states, but other states as well
because they would concentrate on trying to win over individual citizens rather than states as a
whole. Whilst this is an advantage, the problem could arise where candidates neglect to focus on
states with smaller populations, in favor for states with larger populations.
Furthermore, since the Electoral College has a winner-take-all system, it discourages
opposing party voters in deep blue or deep red states to turn out and vote. However, if America
adopted the NPVIC, voters in the minority party of that state would be incentivized to vote
because their electors would vote in accordance with the winner of the national popular vote, not
the state’s popular vote. This could increase voter turnout and ensure that they know their vote
has value and matters.
However, the NPVIC does not possess any binding legal repercussions if an elector does
not vote in accordance with the national popular vote.
Congressional Districts
In a congressional district system, districts are permitted a particular number of votes,
with an additional two votes being given to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that
certain state. Maine and Nebraska have adopted this system of distributing their electoral votes.
This method answers the issue of bigger cities determining the election, since districts that are
not densely populated seldom influence the popular vote, contingent on the state. For example, in
2020, most of the districts in Pennsylvania voted red, but because Pittsburgh and Philadelphia
voted blue, the electoral votes went to the Democratic party.
However, this system would actually worsen the situation that the Electoral College
creates by splitting America into even smaller parts. This would lead candidates to campaign in
one congressional district, creating the same problem that the Electoral College does.
Proportional Popular Vote
The proportional popular vote splits a state’s electoral votes dependent on how much
percentage of the state popular vote a candidate may have won. This goes against the winnertake-all structure that the Electoral College possesses. This alternative would also encourage
candidates to not just focus their campaigns on swing states, but all states instead. Additionally,
minority voters in states that are deep blue or red will be of the perspective that their vote counts.
This gives a voice to a lot of voters, allowing them a say in who leads America. On the
downside, the candidate that wins the Presidency does not have to win most of the popular vote,
same as the Electoral College.
Why the Electoral College hasn’t been abolished yet
Despite there being over 700 proposals for the Electoral College to be abolished over the
years, the government has been unable to do so. This is because to do so, there needs to be an
amendment in the U.S Constitution, which requires 2/3 of the Senate and House of
Representatives to agree. This is a cumbersome process and is very difficult to attain.
Conclusion
A democracy in its definition is ‘for the people, by the people’. When a Presidential
election system does not give the Presidency to the winner of the national popular vote, it is
evident that a change needs to be implemented. I believe that the best way to move forward is to
alter the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment that moves towards the NPVIC,
even though it is difficult to attain. With pressure from NPVIC supporters, there is a possibility
that Congress will pass an amendment. If that isn’t possible, then adopting the NPVIC through
ballot initiatives in states could be an easier method. I don’t believe that states should be
permitted to change their electoral process as they like, due to the partisan choices they are likely
to make in order to aid their favored candidate in the following election. The current system is
flawed and needs altering, ideally through a constitutional amendment.
Bibliography
About the electors. (2021, May 11). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/electoralcollege/electors
Epps, G. (2007). Let's abolish the Electoral College. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1286493
Janda, K., Berry, J. M., Goldman, J., Deborah, D., & Manna, P. (2021). The challenge of
democracy: American government in global politics. Cengage Learning.
Part III. A national popular vote. (2020). Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, 171308. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674974104-004
Shaw, K. (2022). 'A mystifying and distorting factor:' the Electoral College and American
democracy (Reviewing Jesse Wegman, "Let the people pick the president: The case for
abolishing the Electoral College"). SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4063125