Toward a More Democratic Presidential Election: Examining the Electoral College

The United States’ presidential election voting process balances popular representation with the principle of federalism, that power should be distributed between national and state governments. At its core lies the Electoral College, a mechanism established by the Constitution to elect the president and vice president. 

This system involves each state appointing electors, who then cast votes to determine the outcome of the election. While the Electoral College aims to balance the interests of states, it has sparked significant debate over its democratic nature and the discrepancies it can create between the popular vote and the final result of presidential elections. As calls for reform grow louder, examining the current process and exploring potential changes is crucial for enhancing democratic representation.

What Is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is a system used to elect the president and vice president of the United States. Instead of a direct vote by the people, each state gets a certain number of “electors” based on its population. These electors then vote for the president. Most states give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state. To become president, a candidate needs a majority of these electoral votes (currently, at least 270 out of 538). This system adds complexity because a candidate can win the overall popular vote but still lose the election if they don’t win enough electoral votes.

The Origins of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a mechanism to vote for the United States president. It is a compromise between electing the president by a vote in Congress and election by popular vote of citizens. The nation’s founders aimed to balance the influence of populous and less populous states and to provide a layer of deliberation in the selection of the president. 

The Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, supported the Electoral College as it provided a buffer against direct democracy and protected smaller states’ interests. The Anti-Federalists and some delegates opposed it, preferring direct election by popular vote. The compromise was to create a system where electors, equal to the total number of senators and representatives, would be chosen by the states to vote for the president, ensuring a balance between state and popular interests.

Pros of the Electoral College

Stability and Federalism

Proponents of the Electoral College say it has provided a stable election process for over two centuries, facilitating peaceful transfers of power. It reinforces the federal structure by ensuring states play a crucial role in national elections, requiring candidates to appeal to a broad coalition of states.

Prevents Urban Dominance

By balancing influence, the Electoral College prevents highly populated urban areas from dominating presidential elections, ensuring rural areas also have a voice. This maintains the political relevance of smaller and less densely populated regions.

Cons of the Electoral College

Disproportionate Influence and Winner-Take-All System

Smaller states wield disproportionate power due to the combination of Senate and House representation in the electoral vote allocation. This results in an imbalance where votes in less populous states carry more weight. Additionally, the winner-take-all system used by most states can lead to scenarios where a candidate wins the Electoral College while losing the national popular vote, as seen in 2000 and 2016.

Swing State Focus and Complexity

Candidates tend to focus on swing states, neglecting solidly Democratic or Republican states, leading to unequal voter attention and resource allocation. The Electoral College’s complexity can also confuse voters about how their votes translate into electoral votes, eroding public trust.

Faithless Electors

One significant drawback of the Electoral College is the issue of faithless electors. Faithless electors are members of the Electoral College who do not vote for the candidate they pledged to support based on their state's popular vote. These electors have the potential to disregard the popular vote of their state, thereby undermining the democratic process and voter choice. Although rare, instances of faithless electors can lead to outcomes that do not accurately reflect the will of the people. This vulnerability becomes especially concerning in tight electoral races, where even a small number of faithless votes could alter the final result. While some states have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote, not all states enforce these laws strictly, further exacerbating the risk.

Exploitation and Vulnerability to Foreign Influence

The Electoral College is susceptible to exploitation through misinformation campaigns and foreign interference. In the 2016 election, Russian operatives targeted swing state voters with social media disinformation. The decentralized nature of the Electoral College means small changes in key states can significantly impact the outcome of elections, making it an attractive target for foreign adversaries.

It has also led to contentious elections where the winner of the popular vote has not won the presidency. Below are some of the contentious elections.

History of Contentious Presidential Elections Due to the Electoral College

• Election of 1800

  • Candidates: Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams.

  • Issue: The Electoral College resulted in a tie between Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr.

  • Resolution: The House of Representatives decided the election, selecting Jefferson as president after 36 ballots.

• Election of 1824

  • Candidates: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay.

  • Issue: No candidate received a majority of electoral votes.

  • Resolution: The House of Representatives chose Adams, despite Jackson having won the popular and electoral plurality.

• Election of 1876

  • Candidates: Rutherford B. Hayes vs. Samuel J. Tilden.

  • Issue: Disputed electoral votes in four states led to no clear winner.

  • Resolution: A special electoral commission awarded the contested votes to Hayes, resulting in his victory despite losing the popular vote.

• Election of 1888

  • Candidates: Benjamin Harrison vs. Grover Cleveland.

  • Issue: Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

  • Resolution: Harrison won the presidency with more electoral votes.

• Election of 2000

  • Candidates: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore.

  • Issue: Contested results in Florida led to a recount and legal battles.

  • Resolution: The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore halted the recount, giving Bush the electoral votes needed to win, despite losing the popular vote.

• Election of 2016

  • Candidates: Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.

  • Issue: Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

  • Resolution: Trump won the presidency with a significant electoral margin despite the popular vote disparity.

The Modern Relevance and Problematic Nature of the Electoral College

The relevance of the Electoral College should be revisited because the degree of federalism it was designed to uphold is no longer as pertinent in today’s political landscape. The original intent to protect smaller states’ interests and to prevent direct democracy has led to disproportionate influence by swing states, often sidelining the majority popular vote. In an era of advanced communication and a more unified national identity, the argument for a direct popular vote has gained traction, advocating for a system that more accurately reflects the democratic will of the people.

Additionally, the Electoral College contributes to the dominance of a two-party system in presidential elections. Because each state awards most or all of its electoral votes to the candidate with the majority of votes, it discourages third-party candidates. Winning significant electoral votes requires broad, nationwide support, which is challenging for smaller parties. This system emphasizes winning states rather than accumulating individual votes across the nation. As a result, presidential campaigns focus on swing states, where the outcome is uncertain. Third parties struggle to gain traction in these key states. 

Additionally, the spoiler effect, where a third-party candidate can split the vote, reinforces the two parties’ dominance. This effect makes voters hesitant to support third parties for fear of indirectly helping their least preferred major candidate win. Overall, the Electoral College system structurally favors the two main political parties.

Proposed Modifications to the Electoral College

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a proposed modification to the way states apportion their Electoral College votes. It would have states award electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote once states representing a total of 270 electoral votes join the compact. Its goal is to ensure that the popular vote winner becomes president without requiring a constitutional amendment. Currently, states representing 209 electoral votes have joined, including California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

The NPVIC has significant implications for third parties. By prioritizing the national popular vote, the NPVIC still inadvertently reinforces the two-party system, as third-party candidates are unlikely to win a plurality of the national vote. This focus maintains the dominance of the two major parties. 

Under the current Electoral College system, third-party candidates can influence election outcomes by winning significant votes in specific states. However, the NPVIC diminishes this influence by shifting the focus to the national vote, thereby marginalizing third-party candidates and reducing their impact on the electoral process. The NPVIC has not been implemented yet because it requires additional states to join, reaching a total of 270 electoral votes. Until this threshold is met, the compact cannot take effect, leaving the current Electoral College system in place. Although the NPVIC is not beneficial to third parties, it still is more democratic than the current Electoral College, because it represents the overall popular vote.

Direct Popular Vote

Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a direct national popular vote ensures that every vote counts equally. This approach adheres to the principle of “one person, one vote.” Implementing this change requires a constitutional amendment. The amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. It must then be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-quarters of the states. 

The high threshold for passing a constitutional amendment, combined with political resistance and public opinion challenges, makes this change difficult. 

Recent Public Opinion on the Electoral College

A significant majority of Americans support eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote system for presidential elections. According to recent surveys, about 65% of Americans favor this change, while only a third prefer to keep the current Electoral College system. This support has been relatively stable in recent years, with Democrats overwhelmingly favoring the shift (82% in favor) and Republicans being more divided (47% in favor) . Overall, this consistent majority indicates a strong desire for electoral reform among the American public.

How Citizens Can Influence Electoral College Reform

• Advocate and educate others about the Electoral College through social media, blogs, and community meetings.

• Influence proportional allocation by lobbying state legislators to introduce and support bills changing how electoral votes are distributed.

• Join advocacy groups and raise public awareness through social media and community events.

• Support candidates who favor proportional allocation in state and local elections.

• Organize or sign petitions and participate in public comment periods for state legislative sessions.

• Advocate for states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) by lobbying state legislators and supporting advocacy groups.

• Encourage federal and state representatives to back a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

• Raise awareness through education campaigns, social media, and community discussions.

• Vote for candidates who pledge to work towards a direct popular vote.

• Participate in grassroots campaigns to support Electoral College reform efforts.

The Path Forward

While reforming the Electoral College is challenging, it could be a crucial step toward a more democratic presidential election. This reform would ensure a president that represents the principle of “one person, one vote.” Such changes can also provide third parties a better chance to gain national recognition and influence. Altering the Electoral College to reflect the will of the majority is a goal worth striving for, promoting a fairer and more representative electoral process.

Sources

1. FairVote. “Electoral College Reform: The Need for a National Popular Vote.” FairVote.

2. National Archives. “U.S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions.” National Archives.

3. The New York Times. “The Electoral College, Explained.” The New York Times.

4. The Atlantic. “The Danger of ‘Faithless Electors’.” The Atlantic.

5. PBS NewsHour. “The Electoral College Explained.” PBS NewsHour.

6. The Heritage Foundation. “In Defense of the Electoral College.” The Heritage Foundation.

7. National Review. “The Electoral College Is an Essential Institution.” National Review.

8. Time Magazine. “Here’s Why the Electoral College Exists.” Time.

9. The Washington Post. “How Russian Facebook Ads Divided and Targeted U.S. Voters.” The Washington Post.

10. Senate Intelligence Committee. “Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election.” Senate Intelligence Committee.

11. National Popular Vote. “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” National Popular Vote.

12. Proportional Representation. “Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes.” Proportional Representation.

13. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Electoral College and Popular Vote.” NCSL.

14. Harvard Law Review. “Is the Electoral College Doomed?” Harvard Law Review.

15. Pew Research Center. “Public’s Views of the Electoral College System.” Pew Research Center.

16. USA Today. “Electoral College Reform Efforts.” USA Today.