Opinion: The Electoral College Should be Abolished

---

Published on 11/20/24

The Electoral College, as an institution, is utterly antiquated. When the United States was established as a country during the constitutional convention, the creation of the Electoral College made sense. There were some states that desired to have the President of the United States elected by Congress, similar to a parliament voting for a Prime Minister, while others desired a strictly popular vote to decide the presidency, so that the people of the country could have their voices properly heard. Furthermore, a compromise such as this was entirely necessary, as every state needed to ratify the Constitution to become part of the Union. Lastly, as political parties were not powerful during the era of the founding, there was no need to be fearful of the downsides of elections under the Electoral College system. Therefore, it became one of the original institutions of the United States of America.

There are a couple of things that I need to make clear before getting into the essence of why the Electoral College should be abolished. First, misinformation surrounding the makeup of America's governmental system. If someone tells you that America is not a democracy, tell them to go back to high school civics class. Here is a simple definition of the type of governance the United States employs by one of its most reputable members of Congress, James Clyburn: "The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot. It is a republic because the Government derives its power from the people." So, if someone that America is a republic, you say yes. But, if someone says we are a democracy, you also say yes.

There's one aspect of democracy that some people confuse themselves with or see as tyrannical: direct democracy. A portion of Americans, who have little understanding of how our government works, think that if the Electoral College were to be abolished, that tyranny would run free in the country. This is simply incorrect. Here is the textbook definition of direct democracy: "Direct democracies may operate through an assembly of citizens or by means of referenda and initiatives in which citizens vote on issues instead of for candidates or parties." Let me provide an example of this in practice: in Kentucky's state-wide elections in 2024, two amendments to the state's Constitution were proposed, which the people directly voted for. Since the people--not elected representatives--decided to either pass or reject these amendments, then it becomes an example of direct democracy. This is obviously not an awful, tyrannical aspect of democracy that some people spout, but one that must be utilized in some--but not all--situations.

Second, let me provide a brief explanation of what the Electoral College is and how it works. I'll start by using Kentucky again as an example. The Commonwealth has 8 electors in the Electoral College, which is equal to the amount of members it has serving in the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the House, the size of the body is made up by the size of state populations, hence why state electoral counts have fluctuated over time. The Senate, on the other hand, as was intended by the Founders, is a body that represents the minority. Therefore, there are two Senators for each state, ensuring that every state--no matter its size--has equal representation in that body. So, Kentucky is a smaller state with six members in the House and two in the Senate, establishing its Electoral College count of 8. A presidential candidate needs to hit or surpass 270 electoral votes to become the president-elect. Currently, there are 538 total electoral votes in the College.

The electors that participate in the state vote ratification process in general (presidential) elections are typically appointed by an elected representative within that state. However, they are effectively symbolic figures, holding little to no power in the voting process. Their role is simply to ratify their respective state's votes following the election. 

Now, it's easy to understand how the Electoral College is somewhat of a happy medium between parliamentarism and presidentialism. However, there is a fatal flaw that was not intended during its creation: the power of political parties. Political parties in America have changed throughout its history. Early on, there were Federalists, Anti-Federalists, the Whigs, etc. The first Republican President in history was Abraham Lincoln, exemplifying how far the country has come in terms of party representation changes. Furthermore, there are also factions inside of particular political parties. Think of the Dixiecrats, a racist subset of the Democratic party that refused to follow the Democrats' overall stance on civil rights following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson. Many of these racist Democrats resided in the southern United States, and were still clinging to their beliefs of minority races being inferior to whites. Eventually, many of the Dixiecrats migrated to become members of the Republican party. To see this in action, look at electoral outcome maps in elections following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The only Democratic Presidents to win substantial votes from the south were from and served in southern states, like Jimmy Carter (Georgia) and Bill Clinton (Arkansas). Very rarely has a president gained popular support in the south, and it usually does not include staunchly red states like Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana. 

These facts lead directly into the flaws of the Electoral College. Since a Democrat or Republican candidate are the only ones who have a realistic chance at winning a general election, that constrains voters to support a candidate from that party. Otherwise, their votes effectively fall into the abyss. This has added to the polarization of political parties and the general public, creating an "us vs. them" mentality on both sides of the aisle. The media has also become an extension of this, as major news corporations like CNN and Fox News cater to Democrats and Republicans, respectively. Since there is little maneuverability for political parties in our current system, a new challenger to the establishment can't be created, meaning that America is effectively stuck in its two-party system of toxicity. 

The tangible weakness of the Electoral College is its prevention to truly represent what the voters desire in a president. Because of the nature of the Electoral College, there are only a handful of states that actually take the attention of presidential candidates, as these states are not solidly Democratic or Republican, meaning that they can gain an electoral advantage over their opponent by winning one of these states. These are called battleground states. They are (usually) Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. There are other states on the precipice of being a swing state, such as Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina--but they have voted in favor of Republican presidential candidates for multiple elections in a row, removing them from that status, in my opinion. The rest of the states, especially those that are staunchly Democratic or Republican, like California and Florida (a former battleground state), receive much less attention from candidates than battleground states and are essentially ignored (relatively speaking). 

Moving on, let's say, for example, that you're a Republican voter in California, an extremely blue state. You voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election, but your vote for president did not matter, as the popular vote has no bearing on the outcome of the election. Furthermore, if you're a Democratic voter in Kentucky who supported Kamala Harris, your vote also does not matter. This is entirely unfair to the average voter, and unnecessarily skews the importance of your vote depending on the state in which you reside. Proponents of the Electoral College say that if the institution is abolished, that Democrats would win every election. This is entirely incorrect. Donald Trump won the popular vote in the 2024 election. Furthermore, since the party switch following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote on 7(!) different occasions. To make matters worse for the effectiveness of the Electoral College, a President has won the general election 9 different times while losing in the popular vote. How is that fair, especially when considering the context? To win a presidential election, you just need to be a "good" candidate that can win votes. The narrative that Democrats would dominate the presidency without the Electoral College is simply wrong.

Lastly, let's touch on the Electoral College influencing voter turnout, and, by extension, causing disenfranchisement. The average voter turnout in Democracies hovers somewhere between 65-70%. This isn't great, as the voter turnout percentage has been declining around the world for decades, but it is still significantly higher than the United States. In the 2020 Presidential election, more people voted than in any other election in the country's history. Joe Biden received the most votes for any winning candidate (81+ million votes), while Donald Trump received the most votes for a losing candidate in history (76+ million votes). However, voter turnout for this election, which hit record numbers, only amassed to  62.4% of the eligible population. 

What could be the cause of this? I argue that it is the Electoral College, as the United States is the only democracy in the WORLD in which a candidate can win the presidency while losing the popular vote. Ask yourself this: if you lived in a state in which you supported the party that was not the dominant one in a general election, and already had little desire to vote, would you? If you're reading this, I'm sure that's because you have an interest in politics, meaning you have a profound reason to vote. The harsh reality is that not enough people care about politics to participate. And, when you have a system in place that denies equal representation when voting for the president, you incentivize people to not participate. There is no reason why the U.S. should have lower turnout numbers than places like the United Kingdom, Egypt, Italy, etc. It is the most powerful democracy in the world for a reason, but chooses to hold itself back. Abolish the Electoral College.

References:

- Abdurashid Solijonov. "Voter Turnout Trends Around the World." 2016. https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/voter-turnout-trends-around-the-world.pdf

- Britannica, "Direct Democracy." https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy

- Britannica, "United States Presidential Election Results." https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863

- National Archives, "Electoral College History." https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

- National Archives, "What is the Electoral College?" https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about

- Public Wise, "U.S. Voter Turnout in Global Perspective," March 29, 2023. https://publicwise.org/publication/u-s-voter-turnout-in-global-perspective/

- UCIS, "Democracy in the United States." https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

- U.S. Congressman James E. Clyburn, "Our American Government." https://clyburn.house.gov/fun-youth/us-government/