pros and cons of the electoral college essay

Electoral College Pros and Cons

• U.S. Political System
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Legal System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.S., Texas A&M University

The Electoral College system , long a source of controversy, came under especially heavy criticism after the 2016 presidential election when Republican Donald Trump lost the nationwide popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes but won the Electoral College—and thus the presidency—by 74 electoral votes .

• Gives the smaller states an equal voice.
• Prevents disputed outcomes ensuring a peaceful transition of power
• Reduces the costs of national presidential campaigns.
• Can disregard the will of the majority.
• Gives too few states too much electoral power.
• Reduces voter participation by creating a “my vote doesn’t matter” feeling.

By its very nature, the Electoral College system is confusing . When you vote for a presidential candidate, you are actually voting for a group of electors from your state who have all “pledged” to vote for your candidate. Each state is allowed one elector for each of its Representatives and Senators in Congress. There are currently 538 electors, and to be elected, a candidate must get the votes of at least 270 electors.

The Obsolescence Debate

The Electoral College system was established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. The Founding Fathers chose it as a compromise between allowing Congress to choose the president and having the president elected directly by the popular vote of the people. The Founders believed that most common citizens of the day were poorly educated and uninformed on political issues. Consequently, they decided that using the “proxy” votes of the well-informed electors would lessen the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the voices of the minority are drowned out by those of the masses. Additionally, the Founders reasoned that the system would prevent states with larger populations from having an unequal influence on the election.

Critics, however, argue that Founder’s reasoning is no longer relevant as today’s voters are better-educated and have virtually unlimited access to information and to the candidates’ stances on the issues. In addition, while the Founders considered the electors as being “free from any sinister bias” in 1788, electors today are selected by the political parties and are usually “pledged” to vote for the party’s candidate regardless of their own beliefs.

Today, opinions on the future of the Electoral College range from protecting it as the basis of American democracy to abolishing it completely as an ineffective and obsolete system that may not accurately reflect the will of the people. What are some of the main advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College?

Advantages of the Electoral College 

• Promotes fair regional representation: The Electoral College gives the small states an equal voice. If the president was elected by the popular vote alone, candidates would mold their platforms to cater to the more populous states. Candidates would have no desire to consider, for example, the needs of farmers in Iowa or commercial fishermen in Maine.
• Provides a clean-cut outcome: Thanks to the Electoral College, presidential elections usually come to a clear and undisputed end. There is no need for wildly expensive nationwide vote recounts. If a state has significant voting irregularities, that state alone can do a recount. In addition, the fact that a candidate must gain the support of voters in several different geographic regions promotes the national cohesion needed to ensure a peaceful transfer of power.
• Makes campaigns less costly: Candidates rarely spend much time—or money—campaigning in states that traditionally vote for their party’s candidates. For example, Democrats rarely campaign in liberal-leaning California, just as Republicans tend to skip the more conservative Texas. Abolishing the Electoral College could make America’s many campaign financing problems even worse.   

Disadvantages of the Electoral College  

• Can override the popular vote: In five presidential elections so far—1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016—a candidate lost the nationwide popular vote but was elected president by winning the Electoral College vote. This potential to override the “will of the majority” is often cited as the main reason to abolish the Electoral College.
• Gives the swing states too much power: The needs and issues of voters in the 14 swing states —those that have historically voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates—get a higher level of consideration than voters in other states. The candidates rarely visit the predictable non-swing states, like Texas or California. Voters in the non-swing states will see fewer campaign ads and be polled for their opinions less often voters in the swing states. As a result, the swing states, which may not necessarily represent the entire nation, hold too much electoral power.
• Makes people feel their vote doesn’t matter: Under the Electoral College system, while it counts, not every vote “matters.” For example, a Democrat’s vote in liberal-leaning California has far less effect on the election’s final outcome that it would in one of the less predictable swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. The resulting lack of interest in non-swing states contributes to America’s traditionally low voter turnout rate .

The Bottom Line

Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment , a lengthy and often unsuccessful process. However, there are proposals to “reform” the Electoral College without abolishing it. One such movement, the National Popular Vote plan would ensure that the winner of the popular vote would also win at least enough Electoral College votes to be elected president. Another movement is attempting to convince states to split their electoral vote based on the percentage of the state’s popular vote for each candidate. Eliminating the winner-take-all requirement of the Electoral College at the state level would lessen the tendency for the swing states to dominate the electoral process.

The Popular Vote Plan Alternative

As an alternative to the long and unlikely method amending the Constitution, critics of the Electoral College are now perusing the National Popular Vote plan designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in inaugurated president.

Based on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution granting the states the exclusive power to control how their electoral votes are awarded, the National Popular Vote plan requires the legislature of each participating state to enact a bill agreeing that the state will award all of its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that specific state.

The National Popular Vote would go into effect when states controlling 270—a simple majority—of the total 538 electoral votes. As of July 2020, a National Popular Vote bill has been signed into law in 16 states controlling a total of 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states, 8 medium-sized states, 3 big states (California, Illinois, and New York), and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote plan will take effect when enacted by states controlling an additional 74 electoral votes.  

Sources and Further Reference

• “From Bullets to Ballots: The Election of 1800 and the First Peaceful Transfer of Political Power.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org , https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/zvesper/chapter1/.
• Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers: No. 68 (The Mode of Electing the President).” congress.gov , Mar. 14, 1788, https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68.
• Meko, Tim. “How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states.” Washington Post (Nov. 11, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/.
• The National Popular Vote Plan
• Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
• How the US Electoral College System Works
• What Happens if There Is a Tie in the Electoral College?
• Presidents Elected Without Winning the Popular Vote
• How Electoral Votes Are Awarded
• 12th Amendment: Fixing the Electoral College
• Who Invented the Electoral College?
• How many Electors does each State have?
• 2000 Presidential Election of George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
• How Many Electoral Votes Does a Candidate Need to Win?
• Swing States in the Presidential Election
• Learn How Many Total Electoral Votes There Are
• What Happens If the Presidential Election Is a Tie
• Purposes and Effects of the Electoral College
• Presidential Elections: ESL Lesson

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly about The Electoral College

A history professor shares his insights on the governmental institution that has increasingly become the deciding factor in American presidential races.

The 2020 presidential election is fast approaching, which means it’s the perfect time for a refresher on the governmental institution that has increasingly become the deciding factor in American presidential races: the Electoral College. We asked Chris DeRosa, Ph.D., chair of the Department of History and Anthropology, to share his insights on the institution.

THE PURPOSE

The original plan called for each elector to cast two votes for president. Whoever received a majority of votes from electors became president; the runner-up became vice president.

States can do what they want with their electoral votes, says DeRosa. Most give them to the candidate who wins a state majority. An elector who defies that assignment is called a faithless elector, and the state has the choice whether to tolerate them. “You don’t get them very often because they’re chosen as party loyalists, and we’ve never had faithless electors swing an election,” says DeRosa.

One of the advantages is the end result is clear: “Somebody wins; somebody gets a majority of the electoral votes,” says DeRosa. If presidents were elected purely by popular vote, a candidate could win the presidency with less than 50% of the vote. “If you had more than two parties contending for the presidency, you might have somebody winning with 30% of the votes, and that’s a ticket to an extremist candidate.”

The first problem with the Electoral College is that it gives more weight to voters in small states than those in more populous ones, says DeRosa. Every state gets a minimum of three electoral votes. However, each state’s total allotment is based on its representation in the Senate (always two people) and the House (varies by population). “So take Washington, D.C., as an example,” says DeRosa. “More people live in D.C. than in Wyoming, the least populous state in the union; but they both get three electoral votes.” (Plus, unlike Wyoming, D.C. gets no voting representation in Congress.)

The biggest problem with the Electoral College is that it encourages vote suppression, says DeRosa. Southern states always had an advantage in the population count, because they got electoral votes appointed on the basis of their slave populations and their white populations. That gave the states extra representation for people they weren’t really representing at all.

After the Civil War, former slaves were counted as “whole” persons, not three-fifths of one, for purposes of electoral vote allotment. But Black voter suppression still took place through Jim Crow laws. This further “inflated the electoral count of people who were not representing all the people in their state,” says DeRosa. “So the Electoral College became a pillar of white supremacy.”

Love it or hate it, the Electoral College is here to stay because changing it would require “constitutional surgery,” says DeRosa. “You would need three-fourths of the states to ratify any change, and too many states that are intent on suppressing votes benefit from the Electoral College.” The downside? “If you never have to appeal to the electorate because you’re successfully suppressing some large part of it, then you have a broken system.”

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

current events

Lesson of the Day: How Does the Electoral College Work and Why Does It Matter?

In this lesson, students will learn about the Electoral College — how it works in a presidential election and why it was created — and consider whether it needs to be reformed.

By Jeremy Engle and Michael Gonchar

This Lesson of the Day and a related Student Opinion question will prepare students to participate in our live panel discussion about the Electoral College, on Oct. 22 at 1 p.m. Eastern. Learn more here.

Lesson Overview

Featured Article: “ How Does the Electoral College Work and Why Does It Matter? ” by Allyson Waller

“It remains one of the most surprising facts about voting in the United States: While the popular vote elects members of Congress, mayors, governors, state legislators and even more obscure local officials, it does not determine the winner of the presidency , the highest office in the land,” the featured article begins.

In this lesson, you will learn about the Electoral College — how it works, why it was created and why it is receiving so much scrutiny now. In a Going Further activity, you will explore the question of whether the Electoral College should be reformed.

1. What do you know about the Electoral College? What is its purpose? How does it work? Do you have any feelings about it, one way or another?

Look at the interactive diagram in “ The Battleground States Biden and Trump Need to Win 270. ” You can build your own coalition of states to see how either candidate, President Trump or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., might win the 2020 election .

Spend some time moving states into the Biden and Trump circles and then respond to these prompts:

What do you notice?

What do you wonder? What questions does it raise?

What story does the interactive tell? Write a catchy headline that captures its main idea. If your headline makes a claim, tell us what you noticed that supports your claim.

Does this interactive change how you feel about the Electoral College? Why?

Questions for Writing and Discussion

Read the featured article , then answer the following questions:

1. Why does having an Electoral College that determines the winner of a presidential election, rather than a popular vote, lead to “an intense focus on key battleground states,” according to Ms. Waller?

2. How many electoral votes are needed to win? What happens if there is a tie in the Electoral College? How often has it happened in the past, and how was the deadlock broken?

3. What is an elector? How are they chosen and what are their responsibilities? What happens if electors break their pledge to vote for their party’s nominee?

4. How did the Electoral College system evolve? Why did our nation’s founders choose this system over direct popular elections for president?

5. Why do some critics say that the Electoral College overrepresents smaller states like Wyoming compared with more populous states like California and Florida? What does it mean for a state to be winner-take-all?

6. What reforms to the Electoral College are currently being considered? What are some obstacles to possible changes? How likely is reform, according to the article?

Going Further

Option 1: Share your thoughts.

What in the article did you find most surprising, memorable or provocative? Has your opinion about the Electoral College changed at all? If so, how? If not, why not?

What does “democracy” mean to you? Based on what you know now, do you believe the Electoral College is democratic? Why or why not?

The Electoral College has elected a president who did not win the popular vote twice in the past 20 years, in 2000 and 2016. Do you think this means the system is broken? Or is it working the way it is supposed to?

Do you think the United States should get rid of the Electoral College? If so, why and what should replace it? If not, why not?

If you want to join a conversation on the Electoral College with other students, you can comment on our related Student Opinion question .

Option 2: Conduct more research.

Want to find out more about the Electoral College — its origins and evolution, its advantages and disadvantages?

You might start with the The Times’s Electoral College topics page , or these Times articles and essays:

A Case for the Electoral College

The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy

Should the Electoral College Be Eliminated? 15 States Are Trying to Make It Obsolete

The Electoral College’s Real Problem: It’s Biased Toward the Big Battlegrounds

The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy

Actually, the Electoral College Was a Pro-Slavery Ploy

Beyond The Times, you might also look at these resources:

The Electoral College: Top 3 Pros and Cons | Britannica’s ProCon.org

Arguments for the Electoral College | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

What the Electoral College Saves Us From | National Review

National Popular Vote website and video

Option 3: What kinds of reform to the Electoral College should we consider?

In the Opinion video “ How Trump Could Win Again, Even if He Loses, ” Jesse Wegman, a member of The New York Times Editorial Board, argues that the Electoral College is undemocratic and unfair, and proposes that we end the winner-take-all system of awarding state electoral votes.

Watch the video and then respond to the following questions:

How does this video add to your understanding, or change your opinion, of the Electoral College? What is one new thing you learned?

Mr. Wegman argues that there are many myths about the Electoral College. Which do you find most illuminating and significant?

Do you agree with Mr. Wegman’s argument that the Electoral College is undemocratic and unfair? Why, or why not?

Do you support the proposed fix, the National Popular Vote plan? Why? What are possible drawbacks or unintended consequences of this plan?

Join our live webinar on the Electoral College on Oct. 22. Here’s how to register.

Allyson Waller, the author of the featured article, and Jesse Wegman, the author of the Opinion video, are guests on our Oct. 22 live panel for students. After reading the article and watching the video, what questions do you have for Ms. Waller or Mr. Wegman? If you submit a question as a comment on this article, we might use it during the live event.

About Lesson of the Day

• Find all our Lessons of the Day in this column . • Teachers, watch our on-demand webinar to learn how to use this feature in your classroom.

Jeremy Engle joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2018 after spending more than 20 years as a classroom humanities and documentary-making teacher, professional developer and curriculum designer working with students and teachers across the country. More about Jeremy Engle

Teaching & Learning

The electoral college: here to stay.

Renowned expert looks at the history of a constitutional provision—and the prospect for changing it

Constitutional Law expert Sanford Levinson focused on the political implications of the Electoral College at Harvard Law School on October 21. He emphasized that the U.S. Electoral College system is unique among the election processes of major countries, which tend towards popular vote models, and he connected it to what he terms “the Constitution of settlement,” the structural provisions of the Constitution that are never litigated and therefore never discussed.

In response to recent criticism and praise of the Electoral College, Levinson highlighted its benefits and the ways in which it influences electoral outcomes, saying, “It is important to look at the way that any constitution rigs the electoral system, if you use rigging as a metaphor not necessarily for unfairness, but for establishing a basic structure, ‘a rigging’ if one thinks of an old-fashioned ship with masts. It makes a difference how many masts there are, and what sails are up and which are down. Rigging may quite literally be a matter of life and death. One is making choices when one constructs an electoral system, and there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system, any more than there is a perfect political society.”

To support his claim that the Electoral College shapes the outcomes of American presidential contests, Levinson cited the 1968 and 1992 elections, when candidates who garnered less than half of the popular vote reached the Oval Office on the strength of their electoral vote totals.

To support his claim that the Electoral College shapes the outcomes of American presidential contests, Levinson cited the 1968 and 1992 elections, when candidates who garnered less than half of the popular vote reached the Oval Office on the strength of their electoral vote totals. From his perspective, “The most important example in American history of this is 1860 and the election of Abraham Lincoln, who got to the Oval Office with 39.8 percent of the popular vote and a majority of the electoral vote, but his election triggered a war . . . through a fatal mixture of the issue of slavery, which might well have triggered a war sooner or later, but also the electoral system . . . that makes electoral votes and not popular votes key.”

Why, then, maintain a system whose historical justifications, according to Levinson, have long receded? He argued that the Electoral College remains intact because of its relationship to exceptionalism and constitutional structures: the “almost insurmountable hurdles to amendment” embedded in the document comprise another exceptional feature of the American Constitution. An amendment to modify the electoral system would require the approval of a supermajority of states. Small states and battleground states hold disproportionate importance under the Electoral College that a popular vote system would eliminate, and, Levinson explained, are therefore unlikely to support any move to reduce their power.

The Electoral College, a product of American exceptionalism and constitutional structures, continues to influence the outcome of national elections by establishing the rules of the game. Ultimately, Levinson said, under the Electoral College system, “it isn’t voters who decide elections. It’s electors who decide elections, and there is a mixed relationship between popular votes and electoral votes.”

Levinson holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas Law School and is a visiting professor at HLS this semester. His talk was sponsored by Harvard Law School’s Graduate Program.

Related Articles

• The 2016 Election: Issues and answers with David Gergen

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

Electoral College Pros and Cons: Analyzing the Strengths and Weaknesses of the U.S. Electoral System

The U.S. electoral system is a complex framework designed to determine the President of the United States. At the heart of this system lies the Electoral College, a process subject to intense debate and scrutiny. Therefore, it is important that we explore the pros and cons of the Electoral College system and provide a balanced analysis of its advantages and disadvantages.

By examining the historical context, the role of small and large states, the impact of swing states, and proposed alternatives, we aim to understand this controversial aspect of the U.S. democratic process comprehensively.

I. Understanding the Electoral College System

Before delving into the pros and cons, let's first clearly understand the system. The United States follows a unique presidential voting system, where citizens do not directly elect the President. Instead, they vote for electors who then vote for the President.

A. Constitutional Framework and Electoral Votes Allocation

The College is rooted in the constitutional framework of the United States. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for electing the President through the College. The number of senators and representatives from each state determines the number of electors. Each state has a minimum of three electors, including two senators and at least one representative, ensuring that even the smallest states have some representation in the presidential election process.

B. Analysis of Voting Methods: Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

The Electoral College system differs from a majority vote system, where the candidate with the most individual votes nationwide wins the presidency. Proponents of the College argue that it promotes political representation and prevents large states from dominating elections, while opponents claim it undermines the principle of one person, one vote. Supporters of the College argue that it ensures that candidates must appeal to a broad range of states and regions to win the presidency.

They contend that a majority vote system could lead to candidates focusing solely on densely populated urban areas and neglecting the interests and concerns of rural and less populated areas. They believe that the College balances the interests of small and large states, preserving the principles of federalism.

Opponents of the College argue that it can lead to undemocratic results. They highlight instances where a candidate who wins the majority vote nationwide may not secure the presidency if they fail to win the majority of votes. This discrepancy between the popular and electoral votes has raised concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the system.

II. The Merits of the Electoral College

Supporters of the system emphasize the following advantages that make it an essential component of the democratic process:

A. Balancing Small and Large States

The College ensures that candidates must consider the needs of all states, regardless of their size or population. Critics argue that a majority vote system would disproportionately favor densely populated states, neglecting the interests and concerns of smaller states. By requiring candidates to build coalitions across different regions, the College promotes a more inclusive and representative democracy.

Small states, with their fewer votes, can significantly impact the outcome of a presidential election. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won the College despite losing the majority vote.

This outcome was mainly due to his success in winning marginal states with smaller populations, like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Critics argue that this highlights the disproportionate influence of mini-states and the potential for undemocratic outcomes.

B. Encouraging Stable Presidential Elections

The system typically provides a clear and decisive outcome in presidential polls. This outcome encourages stability and certainty, preventing prolonged and potentially contentious recounts.

It also reduces the risk of post-election legal disputes, ensuring a smooth transition of power. The College's winner-takes-all approach in most states contributes to this stability, as it allows for a clear determination of the winning candidate.

Critics argue that the stability provided by the College can come at the cost of undermining the principle of one person, one vote. They point out that in a majority vote system, every individual vote would carry equal weight, eliminating the possibility of some votes being more influential.

C. Protection against Majority Tyranny

The system prevents concentrated power in highly populated areas and encourages candidates to seek broad support across different regions. The College discourages candidates from focusing solely on densely populated urban areas by requiring candidates to win a majority of votes. This aspect is crucial for preserving the interests of rural and less populated areas, ensuring that more densely populated regions do not overshadow their voices.

During the Constitutional Convention, the framers were concerned about the potential for tyranny of the majority. They aimed to create a system that would protect the rights and interests of all citizens, including those in less populated areas. The College, with its allocation of electors based on the number of representatives and senators from each state, was seen as a solution to this concern.

Ever thought about running for office?

III. Criticisms of the Electoral College

Critics of the system argue that it has significant drawbacks that undermine the principles of a democratic election process. Here are some of the main criticisms against the College:

A. Undemocratic Outcomes

Due to the winner-takes-all nature of the votes allocation in most states, a candidate can win the presidency without winning the majority vote. It occurred in several presidential elections, leading to calls for revamping and reevaluating the system's democratic legitimacy.

Critics argue that the College can lead to a discrepancy between the majority vote and the electoral outcome, potentially undermining the principle of "one person, one vote." They contend that a candidate who loses the majority vote but wins the electoral vote can assume the presidency without having the majority support of the electorate.

For example, in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore won the majority vote but narrowly lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush. This outcome led to calls for restructuring and raised questions about the accuracy and representativeness of the system.

B. Disproportionate Influence of Swing States

While pivotal states receive increased attention during presidential campaigns, this focus can lead to the disproportionate influence of a small number of states. Candidates may prioritize the concerns of swing states at the expense of those in non-competitive states, potentially neglecting significant segments of the population.

Critics argue that contested states have an outsized role in determining the outcome of presidential elections, while the interests and concerns of non-swing states are marginalized. They contend that the system can result in candidates disproportionately focusing on a handful of states, leading to a lack of attention and representation for voters in non-competitive states.

C. Lack of Direct Popular Vote Representation

Critics argue that a majority vote system would provide a more accurate representation of voters' preferences and eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency despite losing the majority vote.

Proponents of a direct majority vote argue that every vote should have equal weight and that the President should be elected based on the national majority vote. They believe that this would ensure a more democratic process and enhance the legitimacy of the presidency by aligning the outcome with the overall will of the electorate.

D. Disproportionate Influence of Small States

While proponents argue that the College ensures the representation of mini-states, critics claim that it gives them disproportionate influence. The allocation of votes can lead to situations where a smaller state has a greater weight per capita than a larger state. This discrepancy raises questions about the fairness and equality of the system.

In the distribution of votes, each state is allocated at least three electoral votes, regardless of its population. This allocation ensures that even the smallest states have some influence on the outcome of the election. However, this can lead to situations where a small state has a greater per capita influence than a larger state, undermining the principle of equal representation.

IV. Proposed Alternatives and Reform

A. national popular vote interstate compact.

Under this proposal, states agree to allocate their electoral votes to the national majority vote winner, regardless of the outcome in their individual state. The compact would only take effect once states representing a majority of the votes join, ensuring that the majority vote winner becomes the President.

The NPVIC is designed to bypass the need for a constitutional amendment by leveraging the authority of individual states to determine how their electors get allocated. Advocates argue that this approach would ensure that the President gets elected by a majority of the national majority vote while preserving the existing constitutional framework.

B. Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes

This system would reflect voter preferences more accurately and reduce the potential for undemocratic outcomes. In this approach, instead of the winner-takes-all system, each state would allocate its votes proportionally based on each candidate's share of the majority vote.

It would provide a more nuanced representation of voter preferences and prevent a candidate from receiving all of a state's electoral votes, even if they only won a slim majority.

C. Direct Popular Vote

Advocates for a direct majority vote argue that the President should be elected solely based on the national majority vote, eliminating the need for the College. They say this system would ensure a more democratic process and enhance the presidency's legitimacy. In a direct majority vote system, every vote would carry equal weight, and the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide would become the President.

This approach would eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency without winning the majority vote, ensuring that a majority elects the President.

V. Historical Context and Statistical Analysis

To fully understand the pros and cons of the College, it is essential to examine its historical context and analyze statistical data. Exploring the origins and evolution of the system, as well as studying its impact on past presidential elections, can provide valuable insights into its strengths and weaknesses.

The Founding Fathers conceived the College as a compromise between competing interests during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. At that time, there were concerns about balancing the interests of small and big states and the potential for direct democracy to result in the tyranny of the majority.

The historical context of the College sheds light on the framers' intentions and the challenges they faced in designing a system that would ensure both representation and stability. Understanding the historical debates and compromises can help inform the current College discussions.

Statistical analysis of past presidential polls also provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the system. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the majority vote to Hillary Clinton.

This outcome sparked renewed debates about the fairness and democratic legitimacy of the College.

Also, studying votes' distribution and their impact on electoral outcomes can reveal patterns and trends. Analyzing the voting patterns in marginal states, the influence of demographic factors, and the correlation between the majority vote and the electoral vote can contribute to a deeper understanding of the system.

VI. Electoral College Debate: Perspectives and Expert Opinions

The debate surrounding the system has drawn the attention of scholars, political scientists, and experts in the field. Researchers have provided valuable insights into the advantages and disadvantages of the system, offering differing perspectives on its merits and criticisms.

According to proponents of the College, the system promotes political stability, prevents the domination of large states, and ensures that presidential candidates address the concerns of diverse states and regions. They argue that it is a vital component of the U.S. constitutional framework and helps preserve the principles of federalism and representation.

On the other hand, critics argue that the College can produce undemocratic outcomes, diminish the significance of the majority vote, and result in the disproportionate influence of a few pivotal states. They contend that the system should get restructured or replaced to reflect the will of the people better and enhance the legitimacy of the presidency.

VII. Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Prospects

While ongoing discussions have been about reforming the system, implementing any changes poses significant challenges. Constitutional amendments require the approval of a supermajority in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states, making it a complex and difficult process.

The debate over College revamp extends beyond academic and political circles. Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping the prospects for change. Increased public awareness and engagement in discussions about the merits and criticisms of the College can influence the likelihood of revamp.

The Electoral College system in the United States has both advantages and disadvantages. While it aims to balance the representation of small and big states, provide stability, and focus on swing states, it has faced criticisms for potentially producing undemocratic outcomes and lacking direct majority vote representation.

Proposed alternatives and reforms, like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and direct majority vote, have sparked ongoing debates about the future of the U.S. electoral system. By understanding the merits and criticisms of the College, individuals can engage in informed discussions and contribute to shaping the democratic process for future presidential elections.

Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons

Introduction.

The Electoral College is a group of representatives derived from each state and the District of Columbia, whose major role is to elect the president and the vice president of the United States of America. The College is established by the constitution of the United States, and it has been a critical part of America’s political system for decades. The candidate who gets the majority of the electoral votes is given authority to lead the country after the outcome of an election is certified by Congress. The College has been a hot topic for discussion that has attracted the attention of two different schools of thought. The first group comprises critics who oppose the system, and who have made several calls for either reforms or abolition. The second group is comprised of opponents who support the system and who have rejected calls for its abolishment. Both sides have compelling arguments that support their different political ideologies.

Pros of the Electoral College

The Electoral College has been in operation for more than two hundred years. Since its adoption as part of the US political system, several elections have been conducted and it has played a key role in facilitating the democratic appointment of a president without the influence of population numbers in different regions (Connors 13). The pros of the system include protecting the interests of the minority, facilitating a two-party system, directing more power to the states, and promoting the distribution of popular support.

Protecting Minority Interests

In contemporary America, the population of urban areas is higher compared to that of rural areas. Therefore, there is an uneven representation because of the differences in population density. Some states have low populations and a high number of rural metropolitans. The people in these areas mainly include farmers whose interests are not as valued as those of the middle class in cities are (Reed 64). In that regard, the Electoral College protects their interests because the president and the vice president are not elected by a popular vote (Houser 18). The system enhances political cohesiveness because it compels politicians to campaign in all areas of the country (Connors 17). If the top positions were filled through a popular vote, then candidates would focus their campaigns on highly populated areas. The need to acquire votes from multiple regions necessitates the creation of a campaign platform that has a national focus and appeal (Levine 53). Without the college, people in densely populated areas would be marginalized due to poor presentation.

Facilitating a Two-Party System

The US has two predominant political parties, namely the Democratic and the Republican Party. The political system has been widely criticized by historians and political scientists. However, research has shown that the structure creates more stability in the nation because issues of national concern are usually generalized and not specific (Houser 19). The system enhances the cohesiveness of the country because a candidate’s support must be distributed throughout the country for them to be elected president (Reed 75). In that regard, presidential candidates increase their chances of winning by forming coalitions of states and regions. This unifying mechanism is beneficial to national cohesiveness. Moreover, the two-party system absorbs third movements that have been historically shown to propagate radical views (Connors 24). The assimilation encourages the proliferation of two pragmatic political parties that focus on public opinion rather than extremist views that are characteristic of smaller parties.

Directing More Power to the States

The political system directs more power and control to the states because of the power to select representatives to the Electoral College. These delegates participate in the election of the president and represent the interests of all states regardless of their population (Levine 54). In that regard, the system maintains and enhances the success of a federal system of government and representation (Houser 23). The states have important political powers that allow them to address the interests of the citizens both in rural and urban metropolitans. For example, each state participates in the political decisions of the nation through its representatives in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Electoral College (Houser 29). Proponents of the system argue that abolishing the Electoral College would necessitate the abolishment of the Senate and the House of Representatives because they are comprised of individuals who represent all the jurisdictions of the US.

Promoting a Distribution of Popular Support

According to the structure of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must receive support from all parts of the nation to win an election. A candidate’s popularity must be distributed nationally because electors are representatives of all the states (Levine 62). This system promotes political cohesiveness because people from different regions and states must come together to provide support to a certain candidate so that they can have a majority of the electoral votes (Medvic 42). This structure eradicates the probability that a candidate might spend their campaign resources on highly populated regions (Levine 64). Some states are considered swing votes. However, a candidate must receive support from all the regions of the country to win. No single region has the necessary number of electoral votes needed for a presidential candidate to win. A candidate who is popular in a certain region must appeal to voters in other regions to receive the necessary majority for victory.

Cons of the Electoral College

Opponents of the Electoral College have criticized its effectiveness in fostering democracy and national cohesiveness, and have argued that it should either be reformed or abolished. They have presented several reasons that support their argument that the system does not foster democracy, even though its proponents claim it does. The cons of the Electoral College include the possibility of electing a minority president, a failure to reflect the will of the nation, the uneven distribution of power to certain states, and the depression of voter turnout.

The Election of a Minority President

The major disadvantage of the Electoral College system is the probability of the election of a minority president. There is a risk of electing a president who does not have the majority of popular votes (Dufour 8). This occurrence could happen in three main ways. First, if more than two candidates vied for the presidential seat and shared the votes, there is a possibility that none of them would garner the necessary majority. This would happen if the people were so divided that the candidates shared the votes. In 1824, 1948, and 1968 the situation was witnessed (Medvic 63). Second, a minority presidential candidate could win if one of the candidates garnered the most votes in a few states while the other got enough votes to win the necessary majority of the Electoral College (Dufour 10). Third, an independent candidate could alter the numbers such that none of the two top candidates gets over 50% of the votes cast (Levine 78). Smaller states could have a larger percentage of votes because compared to their populations, thus compromising the integrity of the election about the will of the majority.

The Failure to Reflect the People’s Will

The Electoral College system fails to reflect the collective will of Americans in two ways. First, there is an over-representation of people in rural metropolitans because of the uneven distribution of votes based on population. Electors that represent each state in the College are determined by the number of representatives in the House and the Senate (Levine 49). In that regard, votes in different states carry different weights. Second, the system supports a winner-take-all approach as the candidate takes all the Electoral votes in the states they win the popular vote (Dufour 15). This makes it harder for independent candidates and third-party candidates to have any significant political influence in the Electoral College. For example, if an independent candidate received the support of 30% of the votes, he would still not qualify for any Electoral College votes (Levine 72). Therefore, the system discourages the participation of independent and third-party candidates, and so, it denies the electorate the opportunity to choose from a wide variety of candidates.

The Uneven Distribution of Power

Opponents of the Electoral College system argue that it gives too much power to smaller and swing states. This argument can be explained by comparing the states of California and Wyoming. California has 55 Electoral College votes, while Wyoming has three. Consequently, each Californian vote represents 705,454 citizens while a single vote in Wyoming represents 191,717 citizens. In that regard, there is an uneven distribution of power since one vote is not equivalent to one person (Dufour 19). Voters in less populous states have more power than voters in highly populated states have. The major political parties aim to win the support of voters in certain states to emerge victoriously. For instance, the Democratic Party aims to win the votes in California while the Republican Party aims to win the votes in Indiana (Klepeis 11). The concentration of electoral votes in certain states compels presidential candidates to focus their campaign efforts in specific states that have higher political influence. In 2016, a report by PBS NewsHour revealed that presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had concentrated their campaigns in 11 major states, among them Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina (Ross 84). Some states have fixed voting patterns: Minnesota is largely Republican and Utah votes for the Democrat (Levine 83).

The Depression of Voter Turnout

The structure of the Electoral College discourages some voters from participating in elections because of the feeling that their preferred candidate might lose the election. For example, in the 2016 election, Hilary Clinton (the Democrat candidate) had a 15-to-20-point lead over Donald Trump (the Republican candidate) for a long period as shown by the results of the polls (Ross 91). However, the outcome showed a big difference with Donald Trump in the lead. Such an outcome could discourage some people from voting because of the poll’s indication that a win for their candidate of choice was inevitable as indicated by the polls. Another reason why the system depresses voter turnout is the effect of swing states. Some states are considered more important than others are because they are highly populated (Klepeis 14). For instance, California and New York are swing states (Ross 92). Many voters feel like these states are the sources of votes that count. Therefore, they fail to vote based on the assumption that their votes do not count.

The Electoral College has been part of the United State’s political system for more than 200 years. During that period, the system has been discussed and debated from both positive and negative perspectives. Opponents argue that it promotes inequality and it should be abolished. On the other hand, proponents argue that it enhances cohesiveness and political stability. From the foregoing discussion, it can be deduced that the Electoral College does not reflect the nation’s popular will due to the uneven distribution of votes in the Electoral College for each state. Moreover, presidential candidates pay more attention to swing states that have more electoral votes. The system favors poor rural regions over populous urban metropolitans.

The main goal of developing the system was to solve the problem of population disparity in the country. Since its creation, the population of the US has changed immensely. Moreover, the distribution of people in different states and regions has changed. Therefore, the system is ineffective in contemporary America. The system promotes the distribution of popular support. However, candidates pay more attention to states that might “swing” votes in their favor. They focus on states that include Ohio, California, New York, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia. The importance of minor parties and representation is low because the Electoral College system encourages a two-party political structure. Therefore, the system should be abolished to create a more democratic the United States of America.

Works Cited

Connors, Kathleen. What is the Electoral College? Gareth Stevens Publishing LLLP, 2017.

Dufour, Fritz. Is the US Electoral College A Polite Fiction that Should Be Abolished:  The Harbinger Signs vs. The Perennial Head in the Sand Policy . Fritz Dufour, 2017.

Houser, Grace. Understanding U.S. Elections and the Electoral College . The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc, 2017.

Klepeis, Alicia. Understanding the Electoral College . The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc, 2017.

Levine, Herbert. What If the American Political System were Different ? Routledge, 2015.

Medvic, Stephen. Campaigns and Elections: Players and Processes . 2nd ed., Routledge, 2013.

Reed, Melody. Voting in America: Are we voting in Vain? Booktango, 2013.

Ross, Tara. The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founder’s Plan Saves  Our Country from Mob Rule . Simon and Schuster, 2017.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, December 24). Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/

"Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." StudyCorgi , 24 Dec. 2020, studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons'. 24 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." December 24, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." December 24, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." December 24, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

This paper, “Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: December 24, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

It’s time to abolish the Electoral College

• Download the full report

Darrell M. West Darrell M. West Senior Fellow - Center for Technology Innovation , Douglas Dillon Chair in Governmental Studies

October 15, 2019

• 14 min read

For years when I taught campaigns and elections at Brown University, I defended the Electoral College as an important part of American democracy. I said the founders created the institution to make sure that large states did not dominate small ones in presidential elections, that power between Congress and state legislatures was balanced, and that there would be checks and balances in the constitutional system.

In recent years, though, I have changed my view and concluded it is time to get rid of the Electoral College. In this paper, I explain the history of the Electoral College, why it no longer is a constructive force in American politics, and why it is time to move to the direct popular election of presidents. Several developments have led me to alter my opinion on this institution: income inequality, geographic disparities, and how discrepancies between the popular vote and Electoral College are likely to become more commonplace given economic and geographic inequities. The remainder of this essay outlines why it is crucial to abolish the Electoral College.

The original rationale for the Electoral College

The framers of the Constitution set up the Electoral College for a number of different reasons. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper Number 68, the body was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia between large and small states. Many of the latter worried that states such as Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would dominate the presidency so they devised an institution where each state had Electoral College votes in proportion to the number of its senators and House members. The former advantaged small states since each state had two senators regardless of its size, while the latter aided large states because the number of House members was based on the state’s population.

In addition, there was considerable discussion regarding whether Congress or state legislatures should choose the chief executive. Those wanting a stronger national government tended to favor Congress, while states’ rights adherents preferred state legislatures. In the end, there was a compromise establishing an independent group chosen by the states with the power to choose the president.

But delegates also had an anti-majoritarian concern in mind. At a time when many people were not well-educated, they wanted a body of wise men (women lacked the franchise) who would deliberate over leading contenders and choose the best man for the presidency. They explicitly rejected a popular vote for president because they did not trust voters to make a wise choice.

How it has functioned in practice

In most elections, the Electoral College has operated smoothly. State voters have cast their ballots and the presidential candidate with the most votes in a particular state has received all the Electoral College votes of that state, except for Maine and Nebraska which allocate votes at the congressional district level within their states.

But there have been several contested elections. The 1800 election deadlocked because presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson received the same number of Electoral College votes as his vice presidential candidate Aaron Burr. At that time, the ballot did not distinguish between Electoral College votes for president and vice president. On the 36th ballot, the House chose Jefferson as the new president. Congress later amended the Constitution to prevent that ballot confusion from happening again.

Just over two decades later, Congress had an opportunity to test the newly established 12th Amendment . All four 1824 presidential aspirants belonged to the same party, the Democratic-Republicans, and although each had local and regional popularity, none of them attained the majority of their party’s Electoral College votes. Andrew Jackson came the closest, with 99 Electoral College votes, followed by John Quincy Adams with 84 votes, William Crawford with 41, and Henry Clay with 37.

Because no candidate received the necessary 131 votes to attain the Electoral College majority, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. As dictated by the 12th Amendment , each state delegation cast one vote among the top three candidates. Since Clay no longer was in the running, he made a deal with Adams to become his secretary of state in return for encouraging congressional support for Adams’ candidacy. Even though Jackson had received the largest number of popular votes, he lost the presidency through what he called a “corrupt bargain” between Clay and Adams.

America was still recovering from the Civil War when Republican Rutherford Hayes ran against Democrat Samuel Tilden in the 1876 presidential election. The race was so close that the electoral votes of just four states would determine the presidency. On Election Day, Tilden picked up the popular vote plurality and 184 electoral votes, but fell one vote short of an Electoral College majority. However, Hayes claimed that his party would have won Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina if not for voter intimidation against African American voters; and in Oregon, one of Hayes’ three electoral votes was in dispute.

Instead of allowing the House to decide the presidential winner, as prescribed by the 12th Amendment, Congress passed a new law to create a bipartisan Electoral Commission . Through this commission, five members each from the House, Senate, and Supreme Court would assign the 20 contested electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon to either Hayes or Tilden. Hayes became president when this Electoral Commission ultimately gave the votes of the four contested states to him. The decision would have far-reaching consequences because in return for securing the votes of the Southern states, Hayes agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, thereby paving the way for vigilante violence against African Americans and the denial of their civil rights.

Allegations of election unfairness also clouded the 2000 race. The contest between Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore was extremely close, ultimately resting on the fate of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. Ballot controversies in Palm Beach County complicated vote tabulation. It used the “butterfly ballot” design , which some decried as visually confusing. Additionally, other Florida counties that required voters to punch perforated paper ballots had difficulty discerning the voters’ choices if they did not fully detach the appropriate section of the perforated paper.

Accordingly, on December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in counties that reported statistically significant numbers of undervotes. The Bush campaign immediately filed suit, and in response, the U.S. Supreme Court paused manual recounts to hear oral arguments from candidates. On December 10, in a landmark 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Florida Supreme Court’s recount decision, ruling that a manual recount would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Bush won Florida’s Electoral College votes and thus the presidency even though Gore had won the popular vote by almost half a million votes.

The latest controversy arose when Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost three million ballots yet won the Electoral College by 74 votes. That made him the fifth U.S. chief executive to become president without winning the popular vote. This discrepancy between the Electoral College and the popular vote created considerable contentiousness about the electoral system. It set the Trump presidency off on a rough start and generated a critical tone regarding his administration.

The faithless elector problem

In addition to the problems noted above, the Electoral College suffers from another difficulty known as the “faithless elector” issue in which that body’s electors cast their ballot in opposition to the dictates of their state’s popular vote. Samuel Miles, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, was the first of this genre as for unknown reasons, he cast his vote in 1796 for the Democratic-Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson, even though his own Federalist party candidate John Adams had won Pennsylvania’s popular vote.

Miles turned out to be the first of many. Throughout American history, 157 electors have voted contrary to their state’s chosen winner. Some of these individuals dissented for idiosyncratic reasons, but others did so because they preferred the losing party’s candidate. The precedent set by these people creates uncertainty about how future Electoral College votes could proceed.

This possibility became even more likely after a recent court decision. In the 2016 election, seven electors defected from the dictates of their state’s popular vote. This was the highest number in any modern election. A Colorado lawsuit challenged the legality of state requirements that electors follow the vote of their states, something which is on the books in 29 states plus the District of Columbia. In the Baca v. Hickenlooper case, a federal court ruled that states cannot penalize faithless electors, no matter the intent of the elector or the outcome of the state vote.

Bret Chiafalo and plaintiff Michael Baca were state electors who began the self-named “Hamilton Electors” movement in which they announced their desire to stop Trump from winning the presidency. Deriving their name from Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, they convinced a few members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for other Republican candidates, such as John Kasich or Mitt Romney. When Colorado decided to nullify Baca’s vote, he sued. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Colorado’s decision to remove Baca’s vote was unconstitutional since the founders were explicit about the constitutional rights of electors to vote independently. Based on this legal ruling and in a highly polarized political environment where people have strong feelings about various candidates, it is possible that future faithless electors could tip the presidency one way or another, thereby nullifying the popular vote.

Why the Electoral College is poorly suited for an era of high income inequality and widespread geographic disparities

The problems outlined above illustrate the serious issues facing the Electoral College. Having a president who loses the popular vote undermines electoral legitimacy. Putting an election into the House of Representatives where each state delegation has one vote increases the odds of insider dealings and corrupt decisions. Allegations of balloting irregularities that require an Electoral Commission to decide the votes of contested states do not make the general public feel very confident about the integrity of the process. And faithless electors could render the popular vote moot in particular states.

Yet there is a far more fundamental threat facing the Electoral College. At a time of high income inequality and substantial geographical disparities across states, there is a risk that the Electoral College will systematically overrepresent the views of relatively small numbers of people due to the structure of the Electoral College. As currently constituted, each state has two Electoral College votes regardless of population size, plus additional votes to match its number of House members. That format overrepresents small- and medium-sized states at the expense of large states.

That formula is problematic at a time when a Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program study found that 15 percent of American counties generate 64 percent of America’s gross domestic product. Most of the country’s economic activity is on the East Coast, West Coast, and a few metropolitan areas in between. The prosperous parts of America include about 15 states having 30 senators while the less prosperous areas encapsulate 35 states having 70 senators.

Those numbers demonstrate the fundamental mismatch between economic vitality and political power. Through the Electoral College (and the U.S. Senate), the 35 states with smaller economic activity have disproportionate power to choose presidents and dictate public policy. This institutional relic from two centuries ago likely will fuel continued populism and regular discrepancies between the popular and Electoral College votes. Rather than being a historic aberration, presidents who lose the popular vote could become the norm and thereby usher in an anti-majoritarian era where small numbers of voters in a few states use their institutional clout in “left-behind” states to block legislation desired by large numbers of people.

Support for direct popular election

For years, a majority of Americans have opposed the Electoral College . For example, in 1967, 58 percent favored its abolition, while in 1981, 75 percent of Americans did so. More recent polling, however, has highlighted a dangerous development in public opinion. Americans by and large still want to do away with the Electoral College, but there now is a partisan divide in views, with Republicans favoring it while Democrats oppose it.

For instance, POLITICO and Morning Consult conducted a poll in March 2019 that found that 50 percent of respondents wanted a direct popular vote, 34 percent did not, and 16 percent did not demonstrate a preference. Two months later, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reported polling that 53 percent of Americans wanted a direct popular vote, while 43 percent wanted to keep the status quo. These sentiments undoubtably have been reinforced by the fact that in two of the last five presidential elections, the candidate winning the popular vote lost the Electoral College.

Yet there are clear partisan divisions in these sentiments. In 2000, while the presidential election outcome was still being litigated, a Gallup survey reported that 73 percent of Democratic respondents supported a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct popular voting, but only 46 percent of Republican respondents supported that view. This gap has since widened as after the 2016 election, 81 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans affirmatively answered the same question .

The March POLITICO and Morning Consult poll also found that 72 percent of Democratic respondents and 30 percent of Republican respondents endorsed a direct popular vote. Likewise, the NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll found that 78 percent of Hillary Clinton voters supported a national popular vote, while 74 percent of Trump voters preferred the Electoral College.

Ways to abolish the Electoral College

The U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College but did not spell out how the votes get awarded to presidential candidates. That vagueness has allowed some states such as Maine and Nebraska to reject “winner-take-all” at the state level and instead allocate votes at the congressional district level. However, the Constitution’s lack of specificity also presents the opportunity that states could allocate their Electoral College votes through some other means.

One such mechanism that a number of states already support is an interstate pact that honors the national popular vote. Since 2008, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which is an multi-state agreement to commit electors to vote for candidates who win the nationwide popular vote, even if that candidate loses the popular vote within their state. The NPVIC would become effective only if states ratify it to reach an electoral majority of 270 votes.

Right now, the NPVIC is well short of that goal and would require an additional 74 electoral votes to take effect. It also faces some particular challenges. First, it is unclear how voters would respond if their state electors collectively vote against the popular vote of their state. Second, there are no binding legal repercussions if a state elector decides to defect from the national popular vote. Third, given the Tenth Circuit decision in the Baca v. Hickenlooper case described above, the NPVIC is almost certain to face constitutional challenges should it ever gain enough electoral votes to go into effect.

A more permanent solution would be to amend the Constitution itself. That is a laborious process and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College would require significant consensus—at least two-thirds affirmation from both the House and Senate, and approval from at least 38 out of 50 states. But Congress has nearly reached this threshold in the past. Congress nearly eradicated the Electoral College in 1934, falling just two Senate votes short of passage.

However, the conversation did not end after the unsuccessful vote, legislators have continued to debate ending or reforming the Electoral College since. In 1979, another Senate vote to establish a direct popular vote failed, this time by just three votes. Nonetheless, conversation continued: the 95th Congress proposed a total of 41 relevant amendments in 1977 and 1978, and the 116th Congress has already introduced three amendments to end the Electoral College. In total, over the last two centuries, there have been over 700 proposals to either eradicate or seriously modify the Electoral College. It is time to move ahead with abolishing the Electoral College before its clear failures undermine public confidence in American democracy, distort the popular will, and create a genuine constitutional crisis.

Related Content

Richard Lempert

November 29, 2016

Elaine Kamarck, John Hudak

December 9, 2020

Russell Wheeler

October 21, 2020

Related Books

Elaine Kamarck, Darrell M. West

August 27, 2024

Robert Kagan

April 30, 2024

Daniel S. Hamilton, Joe Renouard

April 1, 2024

Campaigns & Elections

Elaine Kamarck

5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Electoral College

During the founding of the United States, the creation of the Electoral College was a compromised that was reached to direct the election of a President. It allows individuals to vote for the candidates they wish and then to have electorates cast ballots based on the voting trends of their region. This allows every state to have an equal vote for President in the US, based on their total population size.

A majority of 270 electoral votes is required for a President to be elected. How each allotment of electoral votes is given is based on the number of representatives in the House and the two senators which represent the state. That means the minimum number of electoral votes is 3, while there is no maximum.

The advantage of the electoral college is that it promotes fairness from a regional perspective. Individual votes count, but in a way that is represented by states. This prevents 2-3 very large states from overwhelming the popular vote count so that a greater portion of the country can be represented by the government.

The disadvantage is that individual votes feel like they do not count either. In 2000 and 2016, the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the electoral college. Here are some additional advantages and disadvantages of the electoral college to consider.

Here Are the Advantages of the Electoral College

1. It requires a distribution of popular support. Because of the structure of the Electoral College, a President must receive national support to win an election. This promotes a healthy cohesiveness within the country because there must be a distribution of that support so that a majority of electoral votes can be received. Without this structure, a candidate would spend most of their time in large population centers campaigning because that’s where the popular vote would be won.

2. It gives minority interests a say in the election. Since a national level of support is required because of the Electoral College, minority causes, interests, and concerns are given a voice that reaches a national level. The votes of a small minority in a state can sway the difference in an election, especially since most states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This allows a certain amount of leverage to be used during the election that may not be possible in general society otherwise.

3. It encourages political stability. The United States focuses on a two-party system because of the structure in the Electoral College. That doesn’t mean other political parties can’t get involved in the election. It just means most candidates that are elected will be either a Republican or a Democrat. The only independent candidate to be elected President in US history was George Washington. The last third-party candidate to win a state’s electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. This means there is a reasonable certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up with the white house.

4. It maintains a system of national representation. The United States was founded on the idea that taxation without representation was unfair. It was part of the reason for the rebellion of the colonies in the first place. With the Electoral College, a general consensus can be maintained so the structure of the government and the independent political powers of each state and local government can continue existing. In national representation, each state and population district receives equal representation, in either the house or the senate, and that allows individual voters to still have a say in what happens.

Here Are the Disadvantages of the Electoral College

1. It creates the possibility of a minority president being elected. The US has elected two minority presidents in the last 20 years because of the Electoral College. In 1992, President Bill Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the total popular vote as well. If no one individual candidate reaches the 270 threshold, then anyone who has received an electoral vote can be elected President by the legislative branch of the government. All it takes is 1 electoral vote.

2. There is a risk of faithless electors casting ballots. No elector has changed the outcome of an election in the United States by not voting for the candidate their individual voters wanted, but the structure of the Electoral College makes it a possibility. There have been 167 faithless electors in history, but 81 of those votes were changed because the original candidate died before the date on which the votes were to be cast. In 2016, there were 10 faithless electors.

3. It can depress voter turnout in some areas. In the 2016 Presidential election, candidate Hillary Clinton had a consistent 15- to 20-point lead over Donald Trump in the polling for several weeks before the election. The final outcome showed a difference of 16.2 percentage points. For Republicans or Independents, casting a ballot for the election could seem pointless because Clinton’s win seemed like a foregone conclusion. Because of the structure of the Electoral College, this can lead to voters choosing not to vote because they feel like their vote is not going to matter anyway.

4. It may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. In the Republican primaries leading up to the 2016 Presidential election, Donald Trump was consistently receiving about 35% of the Republican vote. 30% were voting for Marco Rubio and another 30% were voting for Ted Cruz – both men part of the Tea Party movement and the son of an immigrant. Without that split, Trump may not have made it out of the primaries. Even then, he failed to win a majority of the votes in the main election. With the Electoral College, all that matters is the final count of electoral votes, not actual votes, and that means a candidate may be supported by a minority only.

The advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College show us that the system, while imperfect in some ways, has been a beneficial force in the elections held in the United States since its founding. The alternatives to the Electoral College could offer even more problems than what are currently being experienced, which is why efforts to abolish the structure have failed so far.

The Electoral College was designed to solve the problem of population distribution. It continues to do so today, even though the US is much larger than it was during the first elections.

How do you feel about the continued existence of the Electoral College?

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

In 2000 and 2016, the winners of the popular vote lost their bids for U.S. president after receiving fewer Electoral College votes than their opponents. To continue tracking how the public views the U.S. system for presidential elections, we surveyed 8,480 U.S. adults from July 10 to 16, 2023.

Everyone who took part in the current survey is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

The Electoral College has played an outsize role in some recent U.S. elections. And a majority of Americans would welcome a change to the way presidents are elected, according to a new Pew Research Center survey .

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency. A third favor keeping the current Electoral College system.

Public opinion on this question is essentially unchanged from last year, though Americans’ support for using the popular vote to decide the presidency remains higher than it was a few years ago.

Explore Americans’ views of the political system

This article draws from our major report on Americans’ attitudes about the political system and political representation, conducted July 10-16, 2023. For more, explore:

• The report chapter on Americans’ views of proposed changes to the political system
• The full report

The current electoral system in the United States allows for the possibility that the winner of the popular vote may not secure enough Electoral College votes to win the presidency. This occurred in both the 2000 and 2016 elections, which were won by George W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively.

Partisan views over time

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are far more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to support moving to a popular vote system for presidential elections (82% vs. 47%).

The share of Democrats saying this is nearly identical to last year but higher than in January 2021, a few weeks before President Joe Biden was sworn into office after winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote.

Republicans are fairly divided on this question: 52% support keeping the current Electoral College system, and 47% support moving to a popular vote system. GOP support for moving to a popular vote is the highest it’s been in recent years – up from 37% in 2021 and just 27% in the days following the 2016 election.

Party and ideology

Nearly nine-in-ten liberal Democrats (88%) and about three-quarters of conservative and moderate Democrats (77%) say they would prefer presidents to be elected based on the popular vote.

Ideological differences are wider among Republicans. A clear majority – 63% – of conservative Republicans prefer keeping the current system, while 36% would change it.

The balance of opinion reverses among moderate and liberal Republicans (who make up a much smaller share of the Republican coalition). A majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (63%) say they would back the country moving to a popular vote for president.

Younger adults are somewhat more supportive of changing the system than older adults. About seven-in-ten Americans under 50 (69%) support this. That share drops to about six-in-ten (58%) among those 65 and older.

Political engagement

Political engagement – being interested in and paying attention to politics – is associated with views about the Electoral College, particularly among Republicans.

Highly politically engaged Republicans overwhelmingly favor keeping the Electoral College: 72% say this, while 27% support moving to a popular vote system.

Republicans with a moderate level of engagement are more divided, with 51% wanting to keep the system as is and 48% wanting to change it. And a clear majority of Republicans with lower levels of political engagement (70%) back moving to a popular vote.

Differences by engagement are much less pronounced among Democrats. About eight-in-ten Democrats with low (78%) and medium (82%) levels of engagement favor changing the system, as do 86% of highly engaged Democrats.

Note: This is an update of posts previously published on Jan. 27, 2021 (written by Bradley Jones, a former senior researcher), and Aug. 5, 2022 (written by Jocelyn Kiley and Rebecca Salzer, a former intern). Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its methodology .

In January 2020, Pew Research Center ran a survey experiment that asked this question in two slightly different ways. One used the language that we and other organizations had used in prior years, with the reform option asking about “amending the Constitution so the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins the election.” The other version asked about “changing the system so the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins the election.” The January 2020 survey revealed no substantive differences between asking about “amending the Constitution” and “changing the system.”

We conducted this experiment in large part because reforming the way presidents are selected does not technically require amending the Constitution. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact , for example, could theoretically accomplish it without a constitutional amendment. Since there was no substantive difference in the survey results between the two question wordings, we have adopted the revised wording.

• Election System & Voting Process
• Politics & Policy
• U.S. Elections & Voters

Jocelyn Kiley is an associate director of research at Pew Research Center

What Can Improve Democracy?

2024 presidential primary season was one of the shortest in the modern political era, representative democracy remains a popular ideal, but people around the world are critical of how it’s working, bipartisan support for early in-person voting, voter id, election day national holiday, 7 facts about americans’ views of money in politics, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

14 Pros and Cons of Abolishing the Electoral College

As the U.S. Government Archives likes to say, the Electoral College “is a process, not a place.” This structure was placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers of the United States as a compromise between having a vote in Congress to elect the President and the election of a candidate by qualified citizens. This process stopped the process that was used in England to select a Prime Minister.

The Electoral College consists of an elector selection, a group of people who will meet and vote for President and Vice President based on the results of their state’s election. There are currently 538 electors up for grabs in an election, which means a majority of 270 is necessary to elect the President. It’s also the only place where the District of Columbia functions as a state since the 23rd Amendment allocates 3 electors to it.

Although there are some advantages to this system, the disadvantages have been highlighted in recent elections. A presidential candidate who doesn’t receive a majority of the votes can still win the Electoral College to get into the White House. There are also circumstances where a majority of electors might not be available, which would throw the results of the election into the House of Representatives.

As Americans look at their election processes, a complete review of the pros and cons of abolishing the Electoral College is useful when taking this unique structure into account.

List of the Pros of Abolishing the Electoral College

1. It causes some votes to have greater weight than others. Because the Electoral College is based on the structure of state populations and representation in the House, some people have a vote that carries more weight per delegate than others. Despite California having millions of more people living in the state compared to Wyoming, the weight of a vote is 30% less. That means if you live in a rural area, your vote may count more toward who gets to be the eventual president. If this system were to be abolished, then every vote counted would have the exact same weight in the final tally.

2. This action would allow the popular vote winner to take the White House. Over 2.8 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump, but it was Trump who won the White House because of the results of the electoral map. In the history of the United States, there have been five elections where the eventual winner didn’t receive a clear majority of the vote. Two of those elections have occurred since 2000. Only one election was so close that it had to go to the House of Representatives, which is how John Quincy Adams won over Andrew Jackson.

Instead of dealing with these complications, a simple majority vote would always speak of the will of the people. We already see gridlock and partisanship in Congress that limits the opportunities for collaboration. Switching to this standard system would not likely create an adverse result.

3. It would stop the requirement to redistribute the electoral votes. The U.S. Census creates the allocations of electoral votes that each state receives. That means the information receives an update every 10 years. The 2010 census is therefore valid for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 Presidential elections. Then the 2020 census will be valid for the 2024 and 2028 elections.

Abolishing the Electoral College would get rid of this confusing process. There can be distinctive advantages to one party in a decade where three election cycles are possible. It also stops the distribution process where California gets 55 votes, but a state like Delaware only gets 3. Every vote would count equally instead.

4. The reasons for the Electoral College may not be relevant any more. When the Founding Fathers built the idea of the Electoral College into the structure of the American government, their idea of information management was very different than what we have today. It took time for people to learn what was happening in the nation’s capital. Candidates had to go to each state to talk about what they wanted to do for the country because there was no other way to let people know what was happening.

Thanks to the Internet, telephones, email, social media, and every other form of communication that we have today, people can choose for themselves whether a new story has an underlying sinister bias. We’re already letting women, former slaves, and 18-year-olds vote, changing the structure of the election since the country’s founding. Abolishing the Electoral College seems to be the next logical step in that process.

5. It no longer serves the intended job. Alexander Hamilton was a significant supporter of the Electoral College. Although he said that the system was far from perfect, it was at least excellent. Hamilton believed that it would prevent the Office of the President from falling into the lot of a person who was not endowed with the requisite qualifications to serve the American people. Critics of the system would argue that the elections of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are evidence that this impact is no longer present in U.S. politics.

There will always be a concern about the tyranny of the majority in the United States. This issue exists in the Electoral College when the rural states face off with the urban ones. The only difference is that in this unique structure, the voice of the minority can actually shout down the desires of the majority.

6. Abolishing the Electoral College stops swing states from having sway in the election. During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had 90% of their campaign stops in only 11 states. Out of those visits, almost 70% of them happened in only four states: North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Even though proponents of the Electoral College want it to stay so that every state can have a specific say in the outcome of the election, the candidates are already starting to behave in the same ways that people fear they would when targeting a majority population groups.

It also prevents candidates from going into states where the electorate typically votes for the other party. When you know that one state will vote the same way in every election, there is no need to visit that place. There have been some unusual elections, such as the 1972 affair when Richard Nixon took 520 electoral votes to George McGovern’s 16. Reagan also dominated in 1980, taking 489 votes to Jimmy Carter’s 49. Reagan would almost make a clean sweep in 1984 as well, taking 525 of 538 electoral votes and only losing Minnesota and DC.

7. The electoral college ignores the will of the people. There are over 300 million people currently residing in the United States, but only 538 people actually get to choose who gets to be the president. Even when it is against the law for these folks to vote for someone other than what the electoral results in their state indicate, there is always an option to become a faithless elector under the American structure.

The presidential election in 2016 saw a modern-era record for faithless electors, but five of them came from the Clinton camp. Only two Republicans voted for someone other than Trump and Pence. Four of the electors came from the state of Washington. Colin Powell was the primary beneficiary, receiving three votes. Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Ron Paul, and Faith Spotted Eagle received one each. There were two additional votes for Sanders that were invalidated in Minnesota and one for Kasich in Colorado.

List of the Cons of Abolishing the Electoral College

1. The interests of the minority would no longer receive protection. The primary benefit of the electoral college is that it works to protect the best interests of the minority in every election. Electors manage the needs of the state and community instead of following the will of the general public throughout the country. That means there must be a majority of states that agree with a specific candidate instead of allowing the people to decide who they want to have as president. The electors can vote their conscience as well, refusing to follow what their state elections guide them to do.

This process means that each candidate must speak with the entire country instead of visiting the largest cities as a way to solicit for votes.

2. This design promotes the two-party system. Even though some Americans don’t like the gridlock that a two-party system creates, the electoral college keeps this design healthy with each 4-year cycle. It is a process that allows the people to choose who serves in the White House instead of throwing it into Congress. That means centrist ideas tend to be the ones that receive the most traction instead of the individual priorities of platforms on the extreme left or right. That means more people can feel like their government accurately represents their needs.

Having this structure go away would encourage more third-party development. That means the major party that can maintain its base could win elections without a clear majority.

3. It would create problems when multiple candidates run. The Electoral College has given one candidate a majority win in this political structure since 1992, but there have been four times when the winner of the election didn’t receive a clear majority of the votes across the entire country. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with only 43% of the vote, and then in 1996 with 49.2%. George W. Bush won the Electoral College in 2000 even though he received 0.5% less of the popular vote against Al Gore.

Then in 2016, Donald Trump won the Electoral College despite receiving 2.1% less of the popular vote. Adding even more candidates into this discussion without the protections of this structure could create circumstances where someone with less than 35% of the vote could potentially win a four-year term.

4. The chances of a recount would increase dramatically with election. The general threshold that an election result must reach to trigger an automatic recount is a difference of 0.5% of the vote or less. In the history of the United States, there have been six presidential elections that would have qualified for this issue – and three of them have occurred since 1968. There have also been five elections where the eventual president didn’t win a majority of the vote, including Trump in 2016. Only Rutherford Hayes, with a 3% difference, won the electoral college despite being in the minority. The cost of conducting a nationwide recount could be hundreds of millions of dollars, which is money that may not always be in the budget. Sticking to the electoral college format allows us to use electors as intended instead of relying on all of the votes counting.

5. It creates 50 individual contests. Under the current structure of the United States, there are 50 unique presidential contests instead of one nationwide affair to elect a President. If the U.S. were to abolish the electoral college, then the restrictions that territories experience against voting in this election would disappear. Residents of places like Puerto Rico and Guam would have their votes be counted in the final total, and these locations consistently vote for one party. This shift would likely benefit that party for more than a generation. Keeping the electoral college restricts the voting to acknowledged states only.

6. All parts of the country would not be involved in the selection of the president. Without the Electoral College in place, presidential candidates would build platforms that would speak to their base. Instead of having a regional focus that incorporates specific campaigning elements, there would be a national campaign instead. Iowa farmers might lose out to California union workers since their population numbers are larger. The small towns in the United States, along with all of the rural areas, would become marginalized if this system were to be entirely abolished.

7. Getting rid of the Electoral College would radicalize politics. The political game in the United States would change dramatically without the Electoral College present. Instead of a politician trying to appeal to someone with specific needs, the adoption of a general platform that maximizes votes in urban centers would become the emphasis of each party. The places where there are more people become the top priority, especially if there is a chance to swing some votes. The current structure limits Americans from pushing in this direction even though candidates tend to visit swing states more often. Eliminating this barrier could mean that some parts of the country never become part of the overall campaign.

Should the U.S. Abolish the Electoral College?

When Americans are polled about the Electoral College, most of them say that they want it to disappear. They want the option to select a president based on who gets the most votes nationally. During the 2020 election cycle, there are several candidates who are promising to work on doing just that.

“Every vote matters,” commented Senator Elizabet Warren (D-Mass) in an early campaign stop in Mississippi in 2019, “and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

One of the ways that states are considering a way to go around the Electoral College is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This agreement includes several states and DC, giving the electoral vote count assigned to them to the candidate who receives the most votes in the national election. It would only come into effect when it could guarantee that outcome. The group of 16 (as of August 2019) currently control 196 electoral votes together.

The pros and cons of abolishing the Electoral College must go beyond the 65% of people who want it gone. There would need to be a Constitutional amendment if the compact idea doesn’t work. With the divide between Democrats and Republicans currently in place, the likelihood that this idea will receive any movement any time soon is quite minimal.

The End of the Electoral College Is Finally in Sight | Opinion

E arlier this week, Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) decided not to veto an obscure law called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV), which calls for the state's 4 Electoral College votes to be awarded to the presidential candidate who gets the most votes nationally regardless of the outcome in the state. The law doesn't go into effect, however, until states totaling 270 electoral votes join the compact. That's the number of Electoral College votes required to win the presidency. Once dismissed as an unworkable, almost farcical fantasy, the NPV just tallied its 209th electoral vote with Maine, and now has a clear path to victory. And that means that the Electoral College as we know it might not survive past the 2024 election cycle.

This is incredible news. The U.S. Electoral College is, by a quite considerable margin, the most unfathomably stupid democratic institution in the world. It has already malfunctioned twice this century by awarding the presidency to the person who received fewer votes from the American electorate. The 2000 election of George W. Bush , who steered us directly into three distinct catastrophes—the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Great Recession—sent our new century disastrously off course in ways we are still feeling today. The even-more egregious 2016 elevation of former President Donald Trump , who lost the popular vote more decisively than Bush, resulted in the capture of the Supreme Court by reactionary conservatives for at least a generation.

There is no defensible democratic principle that could justify awarding a single national office to the person who received fewer votes than their chief rival. Rather than empowering small states as its proponents wrongly assume, it merely aggrandizes the denizens of closely divided states while depriving citizens in the other 40 or so of any meaningful impact on the presidential election whatsoever. And we all know that the empty sophistry of Electoral College apologists would vanish the day the presidency is won by a Democrat who lost the popular vote. In that sense, the easiest way to get rid of the thing would have been for John Kerry to get 118,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004, which would have made him the winner despite losing the national popular vote to Bush. Back-to-back Electoral College inversions, one for each party, could have generated the necessary momentum to amend the Constitution.

Alas, that is not what happened. Despite the cult of Republican "republic not a democracy" types that love it because it currently helps the GOP, the Electoral College remains as unpopular as ever – public opinion majorities have supported its abolition throughout the 21st century, with 61 percent of Americans on board in the most recent Pew survey in September 2023 . And because Republicans are unlikely to agree to amend the Constitution any time soon, given the party's current structural advantage in the Electoral College (which isn't even guaranteed to last through November), the NPV is the only game in town.

The effort was launched in 2006, with Maryland the first state to join in 2007. Even fairly recently, the path to 270 looked pretty hopeless. With Republicans controlling a majority of state legislatures and governorships since 2010, its prospects looked dim. But Democrats have been quite successful in passing the NPV when they win governing trifectas, and with all consensus blue states in the fold, the action now moves to battleground states like Arizona and Georgia. If Michigan, which currently has a Democratic state legislature and governor, puts it into effect as expected, that would leave the effort at 224 Electoral Votes. If Democrats recapture state legislatures in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona this fall—well within the realm of possibility—that could put 40 of the remaining 46 Electoral Votes in play. If successful there, then all Democrats would need to do is retake the governor's office in Virginia in 2025 and the NPVIC could go into effect, possibly in time to have an impact on the 2028 election.

It won't be that easy, unfortunately. The hard-right Supreme Court—the same one whose 6-3 conservative supermajority was produced by the Electoral College—is likely to have the last word on the constitutionality of the interstate compact effort. In theory, states have the right to appoint their electors in whatever fashion they choose. But awarding them to a candidate who loses the state popular vote could conceivably run afoul of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and an agreement like this between the states could violate the Compact Clause .

But there is plenty of existing Supreme Court precedent to hope the compact would pass constitutional muster, especially given the clarity of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution on this question: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." Nevertheless, lawsuits challenging the NPV are a near-certainty, and if the composition of the Supreme Court remains unchanged, I wouldn't bet on the compact getting upheld. Remember, when this lawless court has been given the opportunity to enhance Republican political power at the expense of Democrats, they have chosen to do so almost every single time, regardless of the legal merits.

That means that Democrats, for this and many other reasons, are going to need to rekindle talk of expanding the Supreme Court if they ever win another trifecta in D.C. While that's unlikely this year given the brutal Senate map facing Team Blue, it is easy enough to imagine Democrats winning both chambers of Congress again in 2026 or 2028.

If they fail, again, to rein in this rogue, corrupt Supreme Court, it would mean not just another long series of policy defeats and reversals, but also a lost opportunity to abolish a hated institution that has tormented them for more than 20 years. And because the possibility of getting out from underneath the Electoral College's absurd thumb hasn't been this tantalizingly close since an amendment effort stalled out in the Senate (via—what else?—the filibuster) in 1970, Democrats need to finally get it done.

David Faris is an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the author of It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. His writing has appeared in The Week , The Washington Post , The New Republic , Washington Monthly and more. You can find him on Twitter @davidmfaris.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Related Articles

• A Sharp Reminder From Wisconsin That All Politics Is Local | Opinion
• Biden's Inflation Still Matters to Swing-State Voters | Opinion
• Joe Biden Promised a Green Transition. What We Got Was More Drilling | Opinion

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial