popular vote essay

What would switching to a popular vote for U.S. president really mean?

February 8, 2022 at 1:35pm

As part of an op-ed series, FIU News shares the expertise and diverse perspectives of members of the university community. In this piece, political science doctoral candidate Bethany Bowra explores Americans’ attitudes toward the Electoral College. Co-authored with Stephen Neely, associate professor at the University of South Florida’s School of Public Affairs, this article first appeared in the Tampa Bay Times and is republished with permission.

By Bethany Bowra and Stephen Neely 

In 2016, Donald Trump became the second presidential candidate in as many decades to win the Electoral College despite losing the national popular vote. The outcome sparked renewed criticism of the Electoral College mechanism in some circles, and since then, five more states have committed to an interstate compact that would award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — regardless of how their state voted.

What might such a change look like in practice? How might it affect future elections? We polled Americans in search of some answers.

To date, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been adopted by 15 states — though not Florida — as well as Washington, D.C. It lacks the force of law because those states account for only 195 of the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the presidency, and the pact would not take effect until states whose votes total the winning number sign-on.

Were this to happen, the adopting states could effectively circumvent the Electoral College without undergoing the arduous process of amending the Constitution. The popular vote compact strategy avoids those obstacles by changing the law based solely on enough individual states agreeing. This approach has turned some people off to the idea but nonetheless has remained a consistent alternative in the Electoral College conversation.

In a recent survey, we asked a representative sample of 1,000 eligible voters to share their thoughts on the Electoral College, as well as their preferences for a national popular vote. While we found that a small majority are in favor of abandoning the Electoral College for a national popular vote, there is relatively little agreement about the electoral implications of such a reform.

When asked whether it would be “in the best interest of the United States to keep the current Electoral College system or to adopt a national popular vote instead,” a small majority of 53 percent advocated for changing to a national popular vote. In contrast, 32 percent expressed a preference for the Electoral College mechanism, while 15 percent were “unsure.”

As the data shows, abandoning the Electoral College system has become a more mainstream idea in recent years, with both the 2000 (George W. Bush) and 2016 (Donald Trump) elections resulting in a president who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. Before happening twice in just the 21st century, the phenomenon had only occurred two other times in our history — 1876 and 1888. This raises the possibility that a once-rare electoral outcome may be becoming more common as America’s political landscape continues to evolve and polarize.

Democrats were more likely to oppose the Electoral College, with 68 percent expressing their preference for a national popular vote, compared with 54 percent of independents and 37 percent of Republicans.

While the results could be classified as strong plurality support for electoral reform, respondents held different opinions about the potential ramifications of such a change. Seventy percent agreed that switching to a national popular vote would dramatically change the outcome of American elections, though some prominent Electoral College commentators have disagreed.

Some felt that the current system unfairly favors small states (26 percent), while others argued that the Electoral College protects the interests of smaller states (50 percent) and ensures that diverse interests are represented in presidential elections (40 percent).

Partisans were also divided, with 27 percent of Republicans claiming that the Electoral College unfairly favors Democratic candidates, while 34 percent of Democrats claimed that it unfairly favors Republicans. Independents were relatively split, with 17 percent claiming that the Electoral College favors Democrats and 18 percent claiming that it favors Republicans.

Overall, the responses suggest that while there may be majority support for a national popular vote, there is relatively little agreement on what a post-Electoral College landscape would look like, which interests it may favor, or in which direction it may shift the balance of power in American politics.

For the moment, the question may be moot, as it appears unlikely that the national popular vote compact will gain the requisite support to command 270 electoral votes at least in the near term. However, the increasingly partisan nature of state and national elections may push movement on the issue, particularly as some voters increasingly question the fairness of national election outcomes. And as Donald Trump appears to be readying himself for an encore presidential run, it’s unlikely that we’ve heard the last of this debate.

Bethany Bowra is a doctoral candidate in the Steven J. Green School of International & Public Affairs at Florida International University. Her research focuses on interbranch relations, political communication and social media, and she provides U.S. political analysis for various outlets, including Times Radio. This FIU/USF survey was conducted between Jan. 6 and 10. A representative sample of 1,000 eligible U.S. voters was collected via a stratified, quota sampling method, with balanced quotas (by region of the country) for age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, and political affiliation. The results are reported with a 95 percent confidence level and a margin of error +/- 3.1.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Research & Reports

The Electoral College Explained

A national popular vote would help ensure that every vote counts equally, making American democracy more representative.

• Electoral College Reform

In the United States, the presidency is decided not by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College — an outdated and convoluted system that sometimes yields results contrary to the choice of the majority of American voters. On five occasions, including in two of the last six elections, candidates have won the Electoral College, and thus the presidency, despite losing the nationwide popular vote. 

The Electoral College has racist origins — when established, it applied the three-fifths clause, which gave a long-term electoral advantage to slave states in the South — and continues to dilute the political power of voters of color. It incentivizes presidential campaigns to focus on a relatively small number of “swing states.” Together, these dynamics have spurred debate about the system’s democratic legitimacy.

To make the United States a more representative democracy, reformers are pushing for the presidency to be decided instead by the national popular vote, which would help ensure that every voter counts equally.

What is the Electoral College and how does it work?

The Electoral College is a group of intermediaries designated by the Constitution to select the president and vice president of the United States. Each of the 50 states is allocated presidential electors  equal to the number of its representatives and senators . The ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 allowed citizens in the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections as well; they have consistently had three electors.

In total, the Electoral College comprises  538 members . A presidential candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes cast to win — at least 270 if all 538 electors vote.

The Constitution grants state legislatures the power to decide how to appoint their electors. Initially, a number of state legislatures directly  selected their electors , but during the 19th century they transitioned to the popular vote, which is now used by  all 50 states . In other words, each awards its electoral votes to the presidential candidate chosen by the state’s voters.

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia use a winner-take-all system, awarding all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the state. Maine and Nebraska award one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts and their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner. Under this system, those two states sometimes split their electoral votes among candidates.

In the months leading up to the general election, the political parties in each state typically nominate their own slates of would-be electors. The state’s popular vote determines which party’s slates will be made electors. Members of the Electoral College  meet and vote in their respective states  on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December after Election Day. Then, on January 6, a joint session of Congress meets at the Capitol to count the electoral votes and declare the outcome of the election, paving the way for the presidential inauguration on January 20.

How was the Electoral College established?

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 settled on the Electoral College as a compromise between delegates who thought Congress should select the president and others who favored a direct nationwide popular vote. Instead, state legislatures were entrusted with appointing electors.

Article II  of the Constitution, which established the executive branch of the federal government, outlined the framers’ plan for the electing the president and vice president. Under this plan, each elector cast two votes for president; the candidate who received the most votes became the president, with the second-place finisher becoming vice president — which led to administrations in which political opponents served in those roles. The process was overhauled in 1804 with the ratification of the  12th Amendment , which required electors to cast votes separately for president and vice president. 

How did slavery shape the Electoral College?

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the northern states and southern states had  roughly equal populations . However, nonvoting enslaved people made up about one-third of the southern states’ population. As a result, delegates from the South objected to a direct popular vote in presidential elections, which would have given their states less electoral representation.

The debate contributed to the convention’s eventual decision to establish the Electoral College, which applied the  three-fifths compromise  that had already been devised for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Three out of five enslaved people were counted as part of a state’s total population, though they were nonetheless prohibited from voting.

Wilfred U. Codrington III, an assistant professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and a Brennan Center fellow,  writes  that the South’s electoral advantage contributed to an “almost uninterrupted trend” of presidential election wins by southern slaveholders and their northern sympathizers throughout the first half of the 19th century. After the Civil War, in 1876, a contested Electoral College outcome was settled by a compromise in which the House awarded Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency with the understanding that he would withdraw military forces from the Southern states. This led to the end of Reconstruction and paved the way for racial segregation under Jim Crow laws.

Today, Codrington argues, the Electoral College continues to dilute the political power of Black voters: “Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. … Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged.”

What are faithless electors?  

Ever since the 19th century reforms, states have expected their electors to honor the will of the voters. In other words, electors are now pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. However, the Constitution does not require them to do so, which allows for scenarios in which “faithless electors” have voted against the popular vote winner in their states. As of 2016, there have been  90 faithless electoral votes  cast out of 23,507 in total across all presidential elections. The 2016 election saw a record-breaking  seven faithless electors , including three who voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was not a presidential candidate at the time.  

Currently, 33 states and the District of Columbia  require their presidential electors  to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Only 5 states, however, impose a penalty on faithless electors, and only 14 states provide for faithless electors to be removed or for their votes to be canceled. In July 2020, the Supreme Court  unanimously upheld  existing state laws that punish or remove faithless electors.

What happens if no candidate wins a majority of Electoral College votes?

If no ticket wins a majority of Electoral College votes, the presidential election is  sent to the House of Representatives  for a runoff. Unlike typical House practice, however, each state only gets one vote, decided by the party that controls the state’s House delegation. Meanwhile, the vice-presidential race is decided in the Senate, where each member has one vote. This scenario  has not transpired since 1836 , when the Senate was tasked with selecting the vice president after no candidate received a majority of electoral votes.

Are Electoral College votes distributed equally between states?

Each state is allocated a number of electoral votes based on the total size of its congressional delegation. This benefits smaller states, which have at least three electoral votes — including two electoral votes tied to their two Senate seats, which are guaranteed even if they have a small population and thus a small House delegation. Based on population trends, those disparities will likely increase as the most populous states are expected to account for an even greater share of the U.S. population in the decades ahead. 

What did the 2020 election reveal about the Electoral College?

In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential race, Donald Trump and his allies fueled an effort to overturn the results of the election, spreading repeated lies about widespread voter fraud. This included attempts by a number of state legislatures to nullify some of their states’ votes, which often targeted jurisdictions with large numbers of Black voters. Additionally, during the certification process for the election, some members of Congress also objected to the Electoral College results, attempting to throw out electors from certain states. While these efforts ultimately failed, they revealed yet another vulnerability of the election system that stems from the Electoral College.

The  Electoral Count Reform Act , enacted in 2023, addresses these problems. Among other things, it clarifies which state officials have the power to appoint electors, and it bars any changes to that process after Election Day, preventing state legislatures from setting aside results they do not like. The new law also raises the threshold for consideration of objections to electoral votes. It is now one-fifth of each chamber instead of one senator and one representative.  Click here for more on the changes made by the Electoral Count Reform Act.

What are ways to reform the Electoral College to make presidential elections more democratic?

Abolishing the Electoral College outright would require a constitutional amendment. As a workaround, scholars and activist groups have rallied behind the  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact  (NPV), an effort that started after the 2000 election. Under it, participating states would  commit to awarding their electoral votes  to the winner of the national popular vote.

In other words, the NPV would formally retain the Electoral College but render it moot, ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote also wins the presidency. If enacted, the NPV would incentivize presidential candidates to expand their campaign efforts nationwide, rather than focus only on a small number of swing states.

For the NPV to take effect, it must first be adopted by states that control at least 270 electoral votes. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact the compact. As of 2019, a total of 19 states and Washington, DC, which collectively account for 196 electoral votes, have joined.

The public has consistently supported a nationwide popular vote. A 2020 poll by Pew Research Center, for example, found that  58 percent of adults  prefer a system in which the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins the presidency.

Related Resources

How Electoral Votes Are Counted for the Presidential Election

The Electoral Count Reform Act addresses vulnerabilities exposed by the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

NATO’s Article 5 Collective Defense Obligations, Explained

Here’s how a conflict in Europe would implicate U.S. defense obligations.

The Supreme Court ‘Shadow Docket’

The conservative justices are increasingly using a secretive process to issue consequential decisions.

Preclearance Under the Voting Rights Act

For decades, the law blocked racially discriminatory election rules and voting districts — and it could do so again, if Congress acts.

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense

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

Robert Kagan

April 30, 2024

Daniel S. Hamilton, Joe Renouard

April 1, 2024

Michael E. O’Hanlon

February 15, 2024

Campaigns & Elections

Katharine Meyer, Rachel M. Perera, Michael Hansen

April 9, 2024

Dominique J. Baker

Katharine Meyer

July 28, 2023

Should the electoral college be replaced with popular vote?

Salisbury-Elk Lick

I believe that the Electoral College should be eliminated and replaced with a popular vote. There are more than 300 million people living in the United States, but only 538 are deciding who is president.

This wouldn’t be an issue if the Electoral College properly represented the will of the people, but in the most recent presidential election, they failed to do so. A popular vote would ensure that each vote matters and properly represents the people’s decision.

The Electoral College goes against the idea that each person has a vote and defeats the idea that every vote counts.

Lauren Shaulis

The Electoral College, a body of electors chosen every four years, assists the American people in choosing the right candidate for president and vice president. However, some believe that the entire idea of an “outside” party holding a weighted opinion over the typical citizen violates equality and liberty standards.

The picture-perfect vision of America, the land of the free, with its people possessing the entirety of authority, is a mere dream.

The Electoral College shatters the very foundations upon which America was built because it grants an unfair advantage of power to those serving in the Electoral College.

Such a group insults the American people, suggesting that the “average citizen” needs assistance in casting a ballot for the candidate they favor most strongly. Each person holds the capacity to think freely, and to make educated decisions based upon subjective judgement.

Realizing the indisputable degree of unnecessary authority that it holds, I believe that the Electoral College should be replaced with the direct popular vote.

Baylee Wojcik

For several presidential elections in recent history, the Electoral College has overshadowed the popular vote and elected the candidate that the majority of Americans had not voted for.

This ultimately calls for the Electoral College to be replaced by the popular vote.

As described in the Federalist Papers, the voters were believed to be “free from any sinister bias,” but that is not the case today.

Some electors are expected to vote along party lines, and according to the National Archives and Records Administration, political parties can even gain pledges from members to vote for certain candidates.

Additionally, instead of candidates campaigning primarily to the few “swing states” (states that have the most electoral votes), replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote would focus their attention on reaching voters throughout the entire country.

This would give the majority of American citizens a chance to learn more about who they are voting for, and it could greatly increase voter turnout rates.

The Electoral College was originally created because the Founding Fathers believed that American citizens lacked the knowledge and resources to be fully informed about candidates.

The public owes it to themselves to become informed and let their votes make a difference, and replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote is the best way to do so.

Allison Johnson

James Madison once said, “ The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority.”

The Electoral College allows for this statement to become true, and because of this it should not be abolished. Since the Electoral College is in place, each candidate speaks with the entire country instead of visiting the larger states, such as California, as a way to solicit for votes.

If the popular vote determined who won they would focus all their energy on densely populated areas instead of states like Montana or North Dakota. In addition, it keeps the elections relatively simple. With a popular vote, a close election could involve a massive recount across the whole country.

If one state has a voting issue, you can just do a recount in that state rather than causing a national upheaval. Although I believe we should keep the Electoral College, I am also aware that it has flaws.

Not all electors vote according to what their state’s wish. In regards to this I am convinced that a valid compromise would be to implement consequences for the electors that do not follow this.

Possibly a fine or some other form of discipline would avoid this problem

Amy Lorence

If the people are voting on who should run the country, victory should be based off of which candidate receives the majority of the votes. Within the United States, the states are not independent anymore and the country is more unified than it was when the Electoral College was created. Our country is no longer a “state first, country second” system and today, states are thought of more as imaginary boundaries throughout the country.

The Electoral College was created to protect the small states because it gave them more of a say in the presidential election, but that does not pertain to today, because the country is put first and states are intertwined into one nation. If the presidential election was based upon popular vote, everyone would have an equal chance to express their vote whether they live in a small state or not, and it would not change their voting power and it would not hurt the small states.

The Electoral College is now outdated. It was previously used due to the fact that it was impossible to get the real popular vote because of access to voting polls and the fact that it would take weeks, even months to count everyone’s votes by hand. Today, technology makes a popular vote much more feasible.

For years the Electoral College has remained a heavily-debated aspect of our government.

Recently, the controversial 2016 election outcome, along with the upcoming 2020 election, has increased doubt upon the integrity of the process by which we elect our country’s president.

While the Electoral College is a staple of our democratic process, it is an artifact of an era when most Americans were not as aware of the political climate of this country.

Now, most people are able to make informed and intelligent political decisions due to the overwhelming effects of common internet access.

The American people should not allow themselves to be undermined by an outdated system that takes power away from smaller states, such as Wyoming, and allowing large swing-states such as California to control a significant ratio of voting power, which takes away power from the common voting citizen.

There is no easy solution. While an entirely popular vote-driven election process would bring us closer to true democracy, it would still be flawed in its own right.

The United States government is a complicated creature, and although fundamental change should be embraced more often, it’s easy to understand the support behind a system that has gotten us this far and accomplished great things in the time since its inception by our founding fathers.

Julie Mitchell

Shanksville-Stonycreek

Replacing the electoral college with popular vote would be unfavorable.

This reform would produce complicated changes in our political system, remove the influence of small states and it would increase the probability of illegal voting.

By switching to popular vote, our entire polling system would have to be drastically flipped.

This would create chaos involving our protocols for voting and our nation’s process of determining the winner of the election.

Small states are better represented within the electoral college.

The method of popular voting would grant the power to the heavily populated states almost entirely.

Consequently, politicians would focus on gaining the confidence of a target number of states, instead of focusing on the country collectively.

Relying on the densely populated states would fail to provide the lesser populated states with an equal input in the important endeavor of choosing our future leaders.

Another drawback of popular vote is the tremendous problem of illegal voters. Each vote would hold an even more crucial role, resulting in the amount of false voting becoming astoundingly greater.

The Electoral College is not without fault, however, this procedure seems to be the best method for our country at this time.

Search form

• Find Stories
• For Journalists

National popular vote far better than Electoral College system for choosing presidents, Stanford professors say

The Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns, disenfranchises voters and drives partisanship, Stanford scholars say. They suggest constitutional reforms to adopt a single national popular vote where the one-person, one-vote concept applies.

Stanford political experts say it is time to abolish the Electoral College in favor of a single national popular vote where all votes count equally.

It is time to abolish the Electoral College in favor of a single national popular vote where all votes count equally, Stanford political experts say.

The Electoral College is responsible for disenfranchising, in effect, huge swaths of American voters, said Doug McAdam , a professor of sociology who studies American politics. A single national popular or “constituency” vote would determine the president based on who won the most votes total across the country.

Otherwise, McAdam said, “The great majority of American voters exercise no real political voice in the outcome of presidential elections.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College determines who is the U.S. president, based on vote totals in each state. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes (270) wins the presidency. Each state’s number of electors is equal to its number of members of Congress (representatives plus senators). Washington, D.C., also has three electors, so the total number of Electoral College members is 538.

According to McAdam, four out of five Americans exercised no real electoral voice in the 2012 presidential election due to the winner-take-all Electoral College system, which made campaigns focus on the handful of “battleground” states that were up for grabs heading into the election.

“If we define ‘battleground’ states as those where the final margin of victory was 5 percent or less, only six of the 50 states qualify. They were Colorado, 4 percent; Florida, 1 percent; North Carolina, 3 percent; Ohio, 2 percent; Pennsylvania, 5 percent; and Virginia, 3 percent,” he said.

McAdam noted that the mean margin of difference in the remaining 44 states was a whopping 19 percent. “Even with such populous states as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio in the mix, the total population of the 2012 battleground states was barely 20 percent of the country’s total,” he said.

Battleground states dominate

McAdam suggests abolishing the Electoral College.

“No principle is more fundamental to the theory of democratic governance than political equality; that is, the idea that every citizen’s voice or views should count as much as anyone else’s,” said McAdam, co-author with Karina Kloos of the 2014 book Deeply Divided : Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America.

The current system violates this principle, McAdam said, due to its winner-take-all nature. In a close election, voters in one or more of the battleground states may determine the outcome of the contest, he said.

“What about all those citizens who reside in non-competitive states? Consider the loyal Republican who lives in California or the stalwart Mississippi Democrat? Every four years, voting for them is an exercise in political powerlessness, at least when it comes to the presidential race,” he said.

Eliminating the Electoral College would empower voters, McAdam said, likely driving up voter registration and voting rates while creating a greater focus on issues (and not states) in presidential races.

“No single reform would deliver on this promise more than this one,” McAdam said.

But eliminating the Electoral College would not be easy. An amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either the legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Still, 17 such amendments have passed since the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the last being in 1992.

McAdam said that another flaw with the Electoral College occurs when none of the candidates wins 270 electoral votes. Then, the fate of the presidency goes to the U.S. House of Representatives – thus taking it away from individual American voters. This happened in 1876, and given current conditions in the presidential campaigns, could happen in 2016, he said.

National unity a factor

Jack Rakove , a professor of history and of political science, said the Electoral College issue vexed the framers at the 1787 Constitutional Convention down to their final days of debate – and they were not sure how it would work in practice.

“They adopted the Electoral College not because they found it attractive in itself, but simply because it was the least objectionable alternative,” said Rakove, the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Original Meanings : Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution .

“The idea of a legislative appointment of the chief executive might have seemed more attractive, but the framers worried that that would make the president a tool of some dominant faction in Congress, and reduce the initiative and independence they wanted him to have,” he added.

Rakove also recommends replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote. He bases his view on the one-person, one-vote concept and the national unity it could offer.

“The electoral weight of the citizen should not vary from one place to another based on the distorting effect of the ‘senatorial bump,'” which refers to the overrepresentation of small states in the Electoral College due to their two Senate-based electors, he said.

Rakove said the last three U.S. presidents have all suffered from attacks on the legitimacy of their election fueled in part by the perception of a nation largely divided into red and blue states.

“If we think of the electoral map as a tableau of national division, we form a disparaging view of the victor’s presidential authority right from the outset,” he said.

However, if the winning candidate was perceived to be the victor of a truly national election, partisanship might decrease, Rakove said.

The way to begin the reform process is by establishing a prestigious national commission capable of recommending constitutional change, he said.

The art of compromise

David W. Brady , a political scientist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, said that a candidate can win the Electoral College – and as a result, the presidency – without winning the popular vote. It’s happened four times.

Brady pointed to Andrew Jackson and Samuel Tilden, who won the popular vote in 1824 and 1876, respectively, only to see their opponents walk into the White House. This also happened to Grover Cleveland in 1888; he won the popular vote but lost on electoral votes to Benjamin Harrison. And in 2000, George Bush prevailed similarly over Al Gore.

The origins of the Electoral College, Brady said, date back to the Constitutional Convention, when the big states put forward a plan favoring them and the smaller states countered with their own plan.

“The resulting compromise gave us the malapportioned Senate and the Electoral College, where a state gets the number of representatives plus the two senators,” Brady said.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Most Americans support using the popular vote to decide U.S. presidents, data shows

Ayana Archie

In this Jan. 20, 2001, file photo, standing in the rain, President George W. Bush waves as he watches his inaugural parade pass by the White House viewing stand in Washington, Saturday afternoon, Jan. 20, 2001. With him are his wife and first lady Laura Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush. STEPHAN SAVOIA/AP hide caption

In this Jan. 20, 2001, file photo, standing in the rain, President George W. Bush waves as he watches his inaugural parade pass by the White House viewing stand in Washington, Saturday afternoon, Jan. 20, 2001. With him are his wife and first lady Laura Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush.

Most Americans support using the popular vote and not the electoral college vote to select a president, according to data from the Pew Research Center.

About 63% of Americans support using the popular vote, compared to 35% who would rather keep the electoral college system.

Approval for the popular vote is up from January 2021, when 55% of Americans said they back the change; 43% supported keeping the electoral college at that time.

Opinions on the systems varied sharply according to political party affiliation. 80% of Democrats approve of moving to a popular vote system, while 42% of Republicans support the move. Though, many more Republicans support using the popular vote system now than after the 2016 election, when support was at 27%.

There is also an age divide: 7 out of 10 Americans from ages 18 to 29 support using the popular vote, compared to 56% in Americans over 65 years old.

A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College

There have been five presidents who won the electoral vote, but not the popular vote — John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

There are 538 electors, one for each U.S. senator and U.S. representative, plus three for Washington, D.C., which gets three electoral votes in the presidential election even though it has no voting representation in Congress.

The number of electors has changed through history as the number of elected members of Congress has changed with the country's expansion and population growth.

How electors get picked varies by state , but in general state parties file slates of names for who the electors will be. They include people with ties to those state parties, like current and former party officials, state lawmakers and party activists. They're selected either at state party conventions or by party central committees.

The Pew survey was conducted from June 27 to July 4 of this year.

• popular vote
• Electoral College
• Pew Research Center

Why Voting Is Important

“Voting is your civic duty.” This is a pretty common sentiment, especially each November as Election Day approaches. But what does it really mean? And what does it mean for Americans in particular?

Social Studies, Civics, U.S. History

Americans Voting

Typically in the United States, national elections draw large numbers of voters compared to local elections.

Hill Street Studios

A History of Voting in the United States Today, most American citizens over the age of 18 are entitled to vote in federal and state elections , but voting was not always a default right for all Americans. The United States Constitution, as originally written, did not define specifically who could or could not vote—but it did establish how the new country would vote. Article 1 of the Constitution determined that members of the Senate and House of Representatives would both be elected directly by popular vote . The president, however, would be elected not by direct vote, but rather by the Electoral College . The Electoral College assigns a number of representative votes per state, typically based on the state’s population. This indirect election method was seen as a balance between the popular vote and using a state’s representatives in Congress to elect a president. Because the Constitution did not specifically say who could vote, this question was largely left to the states into the 1800s. In most cases, landowning white men were eligible to vote, while white women, black people, and other disadvantaged groups of the time were excluded from voting (known as disenfranchisement ).

While no longer explicitly excluded, voter suppression is a problem in many parts of the country. Some politicians try to win re election by making it harder for certain populations and demographics to vote. These politicians may use strategies such as reducing polling locations in predominantly African American or Lantinx neighborhoods, or only having polling stations open during business hours, when many disenfranchised populations are working and unable to take time off. It was not until the 15th Amendment was passed in 1869 that black men were allowed to vote. But even so, many would-be voters faced artificial hurdles like poll taxes , literacy tests, and other measures meant to discourage them from exercising their voting right. This would continue until the 24th Amendment in 1964, which eliminated the poll tax , and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which ended Jim Crow laws. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920, when the long efforts of the women’s suffrage movement resulted in the 19th Amendment. With these amendments removing the previous barriers to voting (particularly sex and race), theoretically all American citizens over the age of 21 could vote by the mid 1960s. Later, in 1971, the American voting age was lowered to 18, building on the idea that if a person was old enough to serve their country in the military, they should be allowed to vote. With these constitutional amendments and legislation like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the struggle for widespread voting rights evolved from the Founding Fathers’ era to the late 20th century. Why Your Vote Matters If you ever think that just one vote in a sea of millions cannot make much of a difference, consider some of the closest elections in U.S. history. In 2000, Al Gore narrowly lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush. The election came down to a recount in Florida, where Bush had won the popular vote by such a small margin that it triggered an automatic recount and a Supreme Court case ( Bush v. Gore ). In the end, Bush won Florida by 0.009 percent of the votes cast in the state, or 537 votes. Had 600 more pro-Gore voters gone to the polls in Florida that November, there may have been an entirely different president from 2000–2008. More recently, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 by securing a close Electoral College win. Although the election did not come down to a handful of votes in one state, Trump’s votes in the Electoral College decided a tight race. Clinton had won the national popular vote by nearly three million votes, but the concentration of Trump voters in key districts in “swing” states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan helped seal enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Your vote may not directly elect the president, but if your vote joins enough others in your voting district or county, your vote undoubtedly matters when it comes to electoral results. Most states have a “winner take all” system where the popular vote winner gets the state’s electoral votes. There are also local and state elections to consider. While presidential or other national elections usually get a significant voter turnout, local elections are typically decided by a much smaller group of voters. A Portland State University study found that fewer than 15 percent of eligible voters were turning out to vote for mayors, council members, and other local offices. Low turnout means that important local issues are determined by a limited group of voters, making a single vote even more statistically meaningful. How You Can Make Your Voice Heard If you are not yet 18, or are not a U.S. citizen, you can still participate in the election process. You may not be able to walk into a voting booth, but there are things you can do to get involved:

• Be informed! Read up on political issues (both local and national) and figure out where you stand.
• Get out and talk to people. Even if you cannot vote, you can still voice opinions on social media, in your school or local newspaper, or other public forums. You never know who might be listening.
• Volunteer. If you support a particular candidate, you can work on their campaign by participating in phone banks, doing door-to-door outreach, writing postcards, or volunteering at campaign headquarters. Your work can help get candidates elected, even if you are not able to vote yourself.

Participating in elections is one of the key freedoms of American life. Many people in countries around the world do not have the same freedom, nor did many Americans in centuries past. No matter what you believe or whom you support, it is important to exercise your rights.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Electoral Vote vs. Popular Vote

In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. The candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote. But the winner of the popular vote may end up losing the election, like Al Gore did in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton won 48.2% of the popular vote compared to Trump's 46.1% but lost the electoral vote by a substantial margin (304 to 227). In 2012, Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.

This discrepancy occurs because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College . This article explains the difference between the electoral vote and the popular vote, i.e., how the Electoral College system works.

Comparison chart

The electoral college.

There are 538 total electors in the Electoral College, who are chosen by each state of the United States and by the District of Columbia (but not by other territories like Puerto Rico). The number of electors for a state is based upon the voting membership of that state in Congress i.e. the number of representatives in the House plus the number of senators. There are a total of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress; so along with 3 electors from the District of Columbia that brings the total number of electors to 538. A presidential candidate needs 270 (just over 50%) electoral votes to win.

Here is a list of the number of electoral votes for each state:

How Electoral Votes are Awarded

In all states except Nebraska and Maine, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. This means all electors/delegates in a state are awarded to the winner of the popular vote in that state. So in a closely contested election like 2000 (Bush v. Gore), when George Bush won Florida with a roughly 50-50% split of the popular vote in that state, he won all 27 electoral votes for Florida.

Maine and Nebraska use a slightly different method for allocating electoral votes. In the "Congressional District Method", one elector within each congressional district is selected by popular vote in that district. The remaining two electors (representing the 2 U.S. Senate seats) are selected by the statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Nebraska since 1996 and in Maine since 1972.

Faithless Electors

A faithless elector is a member of the Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice-presidential candidate for whom they had pledged to vote. i.e., they vote for another candidate or fail to vote.

Electors are typically chosen and nominated by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, so chances of them turning faithless is low. Nevertheless, there were 7 faithless electors in 2016. Donald Trump ended up getting 304 electoral votes even though he won 306, and Clinton ended up with 227 even though she won 232.

Some states have laws that requires electors to be faithful. However, not all of these states have penalties for faithless electors. Only Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana and Washington have passed the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act, which requires votes from faithless electors to be disregarded and replaced with a new elector. [1]

What happens if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes?

If no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes, the decision moves to the House of Representatives , which would hold what's called a contingent election in which each state gets a single vote. This means California and Wyoming get equal power, despite CA having 50 times the population of WY. Each state's delegation votes in favor of the party that has more House seats in that state. If this were to happen in 2020, the Republican party would get a majority and elect Trump. [2]

Disadvantages of the Electoral College

Critics of the system that uses the electoral vote to choose a president argue that the system is unfair. They say that the system is undemocratic because the number of electoral votes is not directly proportional to the population of the state. This gives smaller states a disproportionate influence in presidential elections. For example, Hawaii has a population of only 1.36 million but has 4 electoral votes while Oregon has a population 3 times that size (3.8 million) but only 7 electoral votes. If the power of a single vote were calculated in terms of number of number of people per electoral vote, states like New York (519,000 people per electoral vote) and California (508,000 people per electoral vote) would lose. The winners would be states like Wyoming (143,000 people per electoral vote) and North Dakota (174,000 people per electoral vote). [3]

Another criticism is that the electoral vote system does not penalize a state for low voter turnout or for disenfranchising its citizens (such as convicted felons, or, historically, slaves and women) The state gets the same number of votes regardless of whether voter turnout is 40% or 60%. In a popular vote, states with higher turnout will directly increase their influence in the outcome of the presidential race.

Yet another criticism is that it discourages voters in states where one party holds a substantial majority i.e. Republicans in typically blue states like California or Democrats in red states like Texas. Since electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis, even a significant minority of contrarian votes will not make any impact on the outcome of the election. On the other hand, if a popular vote were to be used then every single vote has an impact.

Advantages of the Electoral Vote over a Popular Vote

Supporters of using the electoral vote argue that it protects the rights of smaller states and is a cornerstone of American federalism . States can design their own mechanism -- without federal involvement -- for choosing their electors.

Another advantage is that the impact of any state-level problems, such as fraud, is localized. No political party can commit large-scale fraud in any one state to dramatically influence an election.

It should be noted that the Electoral College merely follows from state influence in Congress, which enacts laws and acts as an inherent checks-and-balances mechanism for the president's administration. That is to say representation for various states in Congress is also not directly proportional to their population.

Different Winners of Electoral and Popular Vote

The biggest criticism of the electoral vote system is that it is possible for a presidential candidate to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. That is, more Americans voted for the candidate but he or she still lost. While this is rare, it has happened 4 times:

• George Bush (electoral vote winner) vs. Al Gore in 2000: Al Gore won the popular vote by 543,816 votes
• Benjamin Harrison (electoral vote winner) vs. Grover Cleveland in 1888
• Rutherford B. Hayes (winner) vs. Samuel J. Tilden in 1876: Tiden won the popular vote by 264,292 votes
• John Quincy Adams won the electoral vote in 1824 but lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in 1824

Popular Support for the Electoral College

A Gallup poll in January 2013 found that a vast majority of Americans would prefer to do away with the electoral college for presidential elections.

Implications of a Popular Vote Election

It would be wrong to assume that Hillary Clinton or Al Gore would have been president had the electoral college been abolished and elections were to be decided by popular vote. Indeed, Donald Trump has said he supports a popular vote election for president, and has reiterated this view even after winning the electoral college vote and losing the popular vote.

As Aaron Blake argued when he wrote for the Washington Post , the electoral college forces candidates to structure their campaign in a specific way; they focus on about a dozen "purple" or swing states — such as Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa and New Hampshire. Republicans waste no resources campaigning in decidedly blue states like Washington, Oregon and California, while Democrats avoid campaigning in red states like Texas, Georgia and Oklahoma.

If elections were decided by popular vote, campaign strategies would be very different. If Trump had campaigned more effectively in California, for example, his popular vote deficit in that state would possibly not have been as large as it was. Clinton got 4.3 million more votes than Trump in California. In other words, if the state of California were excluded, Trump would win the popular vote by 1.5 million votes. Supporters of the electoral college system say that this was exactly the kind of scenario—i.e., one large state overriding the wishes of other states—that the current system was designed to handle. [4]

Bias in favor of Republicans

As things stand now, the practical effect of the electoral college is that Republicans have an advantage over Democrats. Running an analysis of the electoral system , complete with simulations for various voting outcomes, the Economist magazine found that

for Democrats to have a better than 50% chance of winning control of the House in November’s mid-term elections, they will need to win the popular vote by around seven percentage points. To put that another way, we think the Republicans have a 0.01% chance of winning the popular vote for the House. But we estimate their chance of securing a majority of congressmen is about a third.

The bias results from current political trends; when the system was designed over 200 years ago the situation was quite different. Every state gets only two senators, no matter how populous. The populous states happen to have large urban populations that tend to be more Democratic-leaning. So in the political atmosphere that we find ourselves in today, Democrats are at a disadvantage. Another 100 years from now, the situation may well be reversed.

• The Electoral College - Wikipedia
• wikipedia:List of U.S. states and territories by population
• Would people in the USA prefer to elect their President via direct elections? - Quora
• How powerful is your vote? - Slate
• Trump lost the popular vote. That doesn’t mean he would have lost a popular-vote election. - The Washington Post
• America’s electoral system gives the Republicans advantages over Democrats - The Economist
• American democracy’s built-in bias towards rural Republicans - The Economist
• How a single person could decide the election - The Atlantic

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Electoral Vote vs Popular Vote." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 21 Apr 2024. < >

Comments: Electoral Vote vs Popular Vote

• Donald Trump vs Joe Biden - Positions Compared
• Democrat vs Republican
• Democracy vs Republic
• Primaries vs Caucus
• State vs Commonwealth
• Liberal vs Conservative

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

18 Pros and Cons of Popular Vote

A popular vote election takes all ballots that are cast, counts them, and declares the winner based on who received the most votes. In the case of a tie, there are contingencies in place to determine which person will serve in the elected office.

The discussion around using the popular vote for elections has increased since the results of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the presidential election by securing 304 electoral votes, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 227 electoral votes. For the popular vote, however, Hillary Clinton received 65.8 million votes, while Donald Trump received 62.9 million votes.

In U.S. history, the electoral college winner has failed to secure the popular vote 5 times. Before the 2016 election, the largest vote deficit in the popular vote was Al Gore securing over 500,000 votes more than George W. Bush.

Here are the essential pros and cons of popular vote elections to examine.

List of the Pros of Using the Popular Vote

1. It gives each vote an equal amount of power. Under the electoral college system of voting, the number of representatives a state has in Congress (Senators and Representatives) is the total number of electoral votes it is allowed. That means every state is allowed a minimum of 3 electoral votes. In 2016, Florida had 29 electoral votes and 9.4 million voters, created a voter value of 0.72. Wyoming had just 3 electoral votes, but only had 255,000 voters as well. That created a voter value of 2.85.

2. All other elections in the U.S. are through the popular vote. The only election in the United States which is not governed by the popular vote is the presidential election. Mayors, governors, and senators are all elected by a simple majority. Under the electoral college, the majority votes of states assign electoral votes to a candidate, which then creates a majority total required for a victory. A popular vote election would bring the presidential election in line with the rest of the election structures.

3. It would eliminate the threat of a faithless elector. A faithless elector in the United States is someone who casts an electoral ballot for someone other than the individuals to whom they are pledged. Even if states impose fines on faithless electors for their actions, it is not a guarantee that the behavior will stop. Although faithless electors have not affected the results or outcome of an election yet, in 2016, there were 7 faithless electors. Going to the popular vote would eliminate this issue altogether.

4. It could encourage voter turnout. One of the biggest reasons why voters don’t vote is because they feel like their vote doesn’t count. Under the electoral college system, if a state consistently pulls as leaning to one party, someone who supports the other party may not vote because they feel like there isn’t a need to do so. Their vote only counts at the local level, not the national level, because of the electoral votes. Removing this system could encourage more people to come out to support their candidate.

5. Security would be improved across the country. There are logistical issues that are managed at the local level in each election. Some areas may “bend” the rules of an election by extending voting hours illegally. Others may struggle to meet higher than expected voter turnout levels. If the election is based off a popular vote, each of these areas would need to be closely examined in real-time, which would enhance the security of each vote that is cast. There would be fewer opportunities to illegally alter the results of an election.

6. Battleground states would disappear in U.S. elections. Under the current structure of the electoral college, the focus of a presidential campaign is on the so-called battleground states. These are the states that may go to either major party candidate in the election. That means some voters, like Republicans in California or Democrats in Mississippi, are voting without power and without attention from their preferred candidates each year. A switch to the popular vote would eliminate the concept of a battleground state because the issue would be more on issues than states.

7. It would eliminate the Congressional provisions for a non-majority election. The electoral requires that an election which does not receive a majority of electoral votes be taken into the U.S. House of Representatives. At that stage, anyone who received an electoral vote is eligible to become the next president. Should that happen, then the final decision of who gets to serve as President of the United States is taken away from individual voters. It happened once, in 1876. Moving to the popular vote structure would eliminate this potential issue.

8. It could help to reduce partisanship. Under the current structure of presidential elections in the U.S., the states become a battleground of red states vs. blue states. This divide creates natural divisions between groups of people who both support their country, but in different ways. If a popular vote were allowed to declare a winner instead, it wouldn’t be through a state-by-state counting of electoral votes. It would be a national mandate to put someone in office, even if that winning candidate received less than 50% of the vote.

9. It would eliminate superfluous votes. Under the electoral college system (and other voting systems not based on popular voting), it only takes one extra vote more than the other candidate to create the needed results for the election. All other votes cast for that candidate are therefore superfluous. In 2016, Hillary Clinton had more than 10 million of these votes, while Donald Trump had more than 8.3 million, even though Trump won 30 states and Clinton won 20 and the District of Columbia. The popular vote eliminates this issue too.

List of the Cons of Using the Popular Vote

1. A close election would trigger the need for a full recount. The cost of a presidential election in the United States is already several billion dollars. On a close popular vote, often defined as a difference of 0.5% or less in the tabulated results, an automatic recount would likely be triggered. That means the cost of counting all the votes would be duplicated. With the polarization in global politics today, especially in the United States, a switch to the popular vote would likely increase costs even further.

2. It would limit the influence of local issues in the election. When a popular vote is held for a national office, the election becomes more about platform issues than local issues. Resource allocation would be focused on paid advertising, which would negate the need for grassroots activities. That would likely reduce the number of voters who cast a ballot in each election as most people are more concerned about local impacts than national policies.

3. There would be a reduced need to build coalitions. With a popular vote in place, each election win would be decreed a mandate to follow the platform of the winning party. That would increase the amount of polarization being experienced in politics today because there would be less of a need to compromise. Even the minority party wouldn’t be encouraged to negotiate because they could simply stall until the next election. Less would get done, which would affect the needs of households at the local level.

4. It would reduce the influence of third parties on the U.S. presidential election. Under the electoral college system, the candidates which receive the most votes in each state (or district) receive its assigned electoral votes. That means a candidate who receives a majority of their votes in a high-delegate state, such as California, could make a dramatic impact on the rest of the election. In 2016, Gary Johnson received 4.48 million votes and 0 electoral votes, but the potential is always there for this to happen. A popular vote structure would virtually eliminate the idea of a third-party candidate having a chance in an election.

5. It would reduce the threshold necessary to win the office. If the presidential election were switched to the popular vote, then it would only take about 35% of the vote for a candidate to win. That is hardly a mandate for governing, though it would be taken as such. We’ve already seen this issue take place with the GOP primaries in 2016. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz often split about 60% of the GOP vote, which allowed Donald Trump to win early primaries with 35% of the vote.

6. Unexpected emergencies would be difficult to handle. During a popular vote, a candidate who withdraws from the race or dies before the election can be held could still be on the ballot. That offers the possibility that someone unwilling or unable to hold the office could be elected. In U.S. history, there has been one vice-presidential candidate who died after being nominated and one that withdrew from their party’s ticket. Although the 20th Amendment to the Constitution provides clarity to this situation, that process is based on the electoral college. What would happen during a switch to the popular vote would be unknown.

7. It would reduce diversity in the election structures. Although moving to a popular vote election would balance the weight of each vote, it would also create more sway in larger population states. People are moving to live in like-minded communities more than ever before. In the U.S., that means people who lean Democratic live in urban areas, while people who lean Republican live in rural areas. More people live in urban regions, which means they would have a constant sway over the election. Rural voters would almost always be in the minority.

8. Regional candidates could secure enough votes to win a national election. Imagine a scenario where a presidential candidate focuses on Los Angeles, New York City, Portland, OR and Seattle. That’s a bank of about 14 million potential voters that reliably vote as a majority for Democratic candidates. Using a popular vote system, candidates could campaign regionally, targeting major areas of support, to secure enough votes to win an election. Without any sort of broad support, the politics of the country could become even more fractured than they already are.

9. It would require an Amendment in the U.S. for presidential elections. Since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights became governing documents in the United States, there have only been 17 amendments made to it. The last amendment, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, was ratified nearly 200 years after it was originally proposed. The amendment requires that any change to the rate of compensation for members of Congress can only take effect after a subsequent election in the House of Representatives. It isn’t impossible to pass a Constitutional amendment, though history shows that it is not an easy process to complete.

For the 7 presidential elections between 1992-2016, the Republican candidate has won the Electoral college 3 times. They have only won the popular vote once.

The pros and cons of the popular vote structure of an election allow for the majority to have their say in who they wish to serve. Although this may limit the amount of diversity that occurs in office, and may generate extra financial costs, the argument could be made that these risks outweigh the results of an election where a majority of states, not a majority of people, put someone into office.

You may opt out or contact us anytime.

Zócalo Podcasts

Will Young Americans Finally Rock the Vote?

After decades of research, we know how to get new people to the polls. we just don’t always do it.

To get young people to vote in greater numbers, accessibility and peer encouragement are key, writes journalist Jane Eisner. President Joe Biden with young voters. Courtesy of AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File .

by Jane Eisner | April 18, 2024

Twenty years ago, I published Taking Back the Vote: Getting American Youth Involved in Our Democracy . The book grew out of a personal passion: Once my oldest child was able to cast a ballot, I became fascinated with the potential and obstacles facing our youngest voters.

I delved into the lengthy and messy midcentury struggle to pass the 26th Amendment, extending the franchise to 18-year-olds. The first bill to lower the voting age was introduced in Congress during World War II—why should young people be old enough to be drafted but not old enough to vote? It had to be introduced 10 more times before it finally was enacted, in 1971.

The bill’s proponents expected the hard-won victory to bring a surge in youth civic participation. Historically, when disenfranchised groups such as women and Black people got the right to vote, participation levels increased. But the 55.4% turnout in the 1972 presidential race remains the highest ever achieved for voters age 18 to 29.

In my book, I identified several causes and short-term solutions, including ending gerrymandering districts (which disincentivizes voting), strengthening civic education, and making registering and voting processes easier. But I noted that enduring solutions would require voting to become a habit—a civic ritual, embedded in the American ethos. Every young person’s first vote should be a communal celebration, I wrote. If we memorialize proms and graduations, why not this rite of civic passage?

We’ve seen cataclysmic changes to the nation’s politics and civic behavior in the years since. Campaigns have moved online, and social media and misinformation have transformed the voting ecosystem. The youth electorate is far more diverse, and the nation far more polarized.

Still, the central message—now borne out by decades’ more research, analysis, and experience—has not changed. Accessibility and peer encouragement drive younger Americans to vote. A galvanizing candidate (Barack Obama, especially in 2008) or a hot-button issue (abortion in 2022) might help. But it is having the opportunity to vote that seems most impactful—and that varies greatly state by state, thanks to the U.S.’s highly decentralized election system. To get more young people to vote and make it a habit, we must dismantle barriers and disincentives.

Positive trends over the last two decades show the way.

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, known as CIRCLE , is a nonpartisan, independent research organization based at Tufts University. CIRCLE has compiled youth turnout rates for midterm and presidential election years since 2014. When the group looked at midterm data , all but one of the 40 states tracked had higher turnout in 2022 than in 2014, though the path wasn’t all positive. In 2014, only 13% of 18- to 29-year-old voters went to the polls; turnout climbed to 28.2% in 2018, then slipped to 23% in 2022.

The uptick over the two presidential campaigns CIRCLE followed was more dramatic: 39% in 2016, 50% in 2020. But there were discrepancies among states. The lowest 2016 youth turnout rate, in Texas, was 28%; the highest, in Minnesota, was 57%. The gap between lowest (32% in South Dakota) and highest (67% in New Jersey) only widened in 2020.

Why? CIRCLE’s analyses suggest that election laws may play a central role. Consider: First-time voters must register, while established voters don’t have to. If potential voters move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—and many young people are very mobile—they must register again.

States with easier, more inviting registration policies often have higher youth voter turnout. CIRCLE found that turnout over the years studied was 9% higher in counties that allow young people to preregister to vote before they turn 18. In 2020, youth voter registration was 10% higher in states with online voter registration.

Conversely, in many states with onerous registration requirements, young people simply don’t vote. Tennessee, Alabama, and Oklahoma do not have same-day, automatic, or pre-registration, and their youth voting rates in the 2022 midterm were abysmal—13% in Tennessee, and not much higher in the other states.

Voting rules vary dramatically across America. Many states loosened rules during the COVID pandemic allowing voting at home, and easier absentee balloting. Some never turned back. Eight states automatically sent mail-in ballots to all registered voters in 2022, and many of these boasted high youth turnout as a result. Data from the National Vote at Home Institute indicates that states with the most generous policies in 2022 had youth voter turnout at or above the national average. States with the most restrictive policies fell far below that average.

Another trend expressly targets younger voters—the growing number of states which require voter identification but won’t accept student ID cards. Permits to carry concealed weapons are often acceptable. Proof of attendance, even at a public university, is not.

This particularly rankles, because college campuses are easy and effective targets for mobilization. In a 2006 study , Elizabeth Bennion of Indiana University and David Nickerson of Temple University found that classroom-based registration drives increased registration by 6%, and voting by 2.6%. Face-to-face presentations worked. Remote outreach such as email, the researchers found, did not.

“The most effective way to mobilize new voters is to catch their attention and to personalize the invitation,” Bennion and colleague Melissa Michelson of Menlo College wrote last year, asserting that voting “is strongly shaped by one’s social environment.”

One might think that more and better civic education would enhance that social environment—I certainly thought so when I wrote my book—but research since then suggests that the results are mixed at best. Knowledge does not necessarily promote action.

Even the most creative and intensive voter mobilization efforts do not confront the underlying structural reasons why so many Americans, especially so many younger Americans, find no purchase in voting. Elections have become increasingly non-competitive in the last 20 years, often decided by a sliver of primary voters who represent the extremes and alienate the rest of us. The Electoral College sweepstakes anoints a few states as essential, and the others as throwaways. Even the fact that Election Day is not a federal holiday suppresses turnout. (Here’s an easy fix: Combine it with Veterans Day. What better way to celebrate freedom?)

The upswing of youth voting over the last few electoral cycles is a hopeful sign. Continuing the trend demands persistence, passion, and patience. The strategies to encourage more young people to vote are sensible, well-documented, and well-known. But 20 years on, I remain haunted: Do we, as a nation, genuinely want to welcome new voters?

Send A Letter To the Editors

Please tell us your thoughts. Include your name and daytime phone number, and a link to the article you’re responding to. We may edit your letter for length and clarity and publish it on our site.

(Optional) Attach an image to your letter. Jpeg, PNG or GIF accepted, 1MB maximum.

By continuing to use our website, you agree to our privacy and cookie policy . Zócalo wants to hear from you. Please take our survey !-->

Get More Zócalo

No paywall. No ads. No partisan hacks. Ideas journalism with a head and a heart.

Essay On Popular Vote

Show More “The Electoral College Should Be Replace by National Popularity Votes” The Electoral College is a body of people representing the states, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. Popular vote is defined as the number of actual individual votes for a candidate or an issue. For many years the strategy of “electoral college” has been the factor for choosing the United States of America president. According to “The Federal Convention”, the Electoral college took effect on May 25 through September 17, 1787. When we vote as citizens of America, we are actually voting for the number of electoral college who are promised to vote for that person we choose. But it isn’t guaranteed that these people who vote for us are going to choose what we want as the people of the US. This idea back then was mainly because they didn’t have the right equipment to actually count all votes. But today they have so many things in which we really don’t need someone else to choose for us. There are a lot of new technical ways for one to cast a vote. In which, this process would be even easier for people to vote and much faster to just receive the popularity …show more content… There are many problems with the Electoral College instead of the population votes. It doesn’t take that many steps in order to go through electing the person. As a native of the United States, I feel as if the majority should win. I choose that because many of these representative; who are representing us aren’t choosing what the people want. But they are choosing what they want they want as an individual. Most of these people who we put in high positions may be certain party groups. Such as: Republican and Democrat. For example, we may have republicans in office, but if we as the people vote for a democrat, we would like our state to be chosen as a democrat

Related Documents

Should the electoral college be abolished dbq analysis.

The electoral college should be abolished because it does not represent what the people…

Electoral College Dbq

The electoral college system is used to elect the president. The candidate who wins the majority of votes (270) wins the election. The electoral college is made up of electors chosen by each state that is equal to the number of representatives in congress. The electoral college should not be changed at all because it protects from uneducated decisions, it protects equal votes for states, and insures a fair vote.…

Should Electoral College Be Abolished Essay

The Electoral College, founded during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, mediated the voting interests of both the states and the federal government. It was initially designed to promote the voice of small states and the American people, create a well-informed voting body, and establish the Presidency as an independent election free from Congressional bias. Although this strategy was an effective solution to political disputes of the aforementioned era, it has now become outdated in contemporary society. Consequently, the Electoral College should be abolished for the subsequent reasons: It is undemocratic in nature, guilty of inequitable representation of the population, and discourages third party candidates from campaigning for the Presidency.…

Electoral College Dbq Analysis

A few years after the United States was founded, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the nation would be governed. They decided that they needed a leader to govern the nation. Based on experiences, the delegates knew that they needed find someone who was not a tyrant and did not abuse their power. The delegates did not believe that the president should be chosen by popular vote. They did not contemplate that voters would be perspicacious enough to make a worthy choice in choosing the president.…

Persuasive Essay: Should We Keep The Electoral College?

The electoral college is a unique and systematic way of picking the US president and has concerned many if it is the right way to do it . The electoral college is not the best way to pick our president and we need to omit it because rural areas are ignored ,distribution of Electoral College VpS (votes per state ) is not equal , and the risk of faithless Electors. The electoral should not be kept because it does neglect our rural areas.…

Abolish Electoral College

The Electoral College should not be replaced. Albeit, the Electoral College is a complicated system and many citizens do not vote because of this and the candidate popular among the people does not always get the electors votes, but the Electoral College has many benefits that outweigh these negative aspects. The benefits range from giving minorities voices to state power. Firstly, the Electoral College allows minorities to have a voice.…

Should The Electoral College Be Changed

The Electoral College works and provides a stable form of federal government that cannot change and provides a plan that has little amounts of disorder. In Article 2, section 1 of the United States constitution it states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:” (Document 2)…

Electoral College Should Be Abolished Essay

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the Electoral College has a body of people who elect the president and vice president of the United States. The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and by the citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 votes is required to become President. Each state has a different number of electoral votes that equals the number of members in its Congress.…

Is The Electoral College Fair Essay

Most people who do disagree with the electoral college believe that since it does not reflect the true majority, but others will argue that a true majority can be just as corrupt as a communist government. The electoral college offers a fair chance to minority voters who would normally have a small voice. Instead The electoral college allows everyone 's voice to be as equal as possible even though it does not reflect the true majority. It ensures that the election will offer the same voice for all citizens. If the country had a true majority democracy a state wouldn’t be able to give its minority citizens a…

Persuasive Essay On The Electoral College

The founding fathers of our nation spent over two months trying to devise a plan that would have a fair and just way of elected our nation’s principal administrator. The Electoral College is constructed of state electors that equal the number of the United States House of Representatives plus the 2 senators from each state. The District of Columbia has three electoral votes even though it is not a state and has no voting representation (“Presidential Election Process”). There are 538 electors total for the Electoral College and 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidential election (“Presidential Election Process”). These individuals are picked by the political parties of the states that they represent and they vote in December and Congress then tally’s these votes in January.…

Electoral College The President of the United States of America is the most powerful man in the world. As the Commander-in-Chief, Leader of the represented party, and peacekeeper among the world, the President’s job is up for grabs every four years. Article II of The Constitution states, any natural born citizen who has been a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, and above the age of thirty-five can become the President (Posner 1). In order to be elected, the candidate must first win a majority of the state’s representatives and secure the party nomination.…

Electoral College Abolished

According to the U.S. Election Atlas. “Given all these drawback, the electoral college is not an effective way of collecting the collective opinion of voters in choosing a presidential candidate”. Electoral College is obsolete and compromised approach, this unjust system should be abolished. The ideal voting method should have equal right among all voters.…

Should The Electoral College Be Abolished?

Duncan, the electoral college was created by the founding fathers were still fearful of democracy and “set up a system of election with more than a few fail-safe structures to prevent this from happening—to keep The People from running amok (Duncan 2016).” While this argument would have been valid at the time of the creation of the Electoral College, it is no longer valid today. The fear of democracy has long disappeared with the fear of witches and the plague, today democracy is what all Americans want to keep. Which proves the point that the Electoral College no longer serves its original purpose and when something no longer serves its purpose it must be rid of. Also at the time of the creation of the Electoral College, there was a strong belief that political parties are wrong and that the candidates should not campaign for the presidency, it was believed that “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office (Kimberling 2008).”…

Electoral College Argumentative Essay

The Electoral College was a system outlined in the United States’ constitution by the founding fathers, as the method in which they believe the president should be elected. But with the progression of time the views on the necessity of the Electoral College has become a controversy, as now two factions exist with one faction believing that the Electoral College is an illegitimate method for the election of a president. Though this faction exists and believes the Electoral College is an unfair system that gives a disproportionate voice to different United States’ citizens, but is it truly unfair and unjust. As the Electoral College is a part of the United States constitution where it can be found in Article II, Section I along with a few clarifications…

The Importance Of Abolishing The Electoral College

The Electoral College is the system that the United States uses to pick our next president. It does it through the vote of 538 Electorates who voters choose at the polls to represent them. Whomever receives 270 or more votes casted by electorates towards their ticket wins the presidential office. This system was created by the founders because they thought it would help protect the interests of the smaller states from the bigger ones. This system of choosing the next president of the United States is unfair and should be abolished in favor of a system that properly represents its people.…

Related Topics

• President of the United States
• United States

Ready To Get Started?

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings

• 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

Essay about Electoral College vs. Popular Vote

Electoral College vs. Popular Vote When given this assignment I had no clue what topic I might choose. I waited and waited until the recent elections blew up in my face. This past election was a learning experience for me because I just turned 18. This was the first year I could ever vote and a weird election like this occurred. I noticed how many people were actually very disturbed with how Gore won the popular vote but will most likely lose the election only because he couldn't win enough electoral votes in one state. The Electoral College was designed in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. A variety of ideas were originally brought to attention. Two significant and highly regarded options were a) Congress selects the …show more content…

Each state can have no less than 3 electors. This is because they get an elector for every chair they fill in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Because all states have two Senate members and at least one House member, we see why. All together, including all of our nation's states we have an Electoral College consisting of 538 members. In order for a candidate to actually become the President he must obtain at least 270 electoral votes, giving him the majority plus one (Glennon 19). Because we use the Electoral College, it has come to occur on numerous occasions that a candidate with a higher percentage of the popular vote is defeated by his political opponent by the electoral tally (Glennon 19), thus defeating the purpose of a Democracy . A Democracy exists if we the people have "the right to self- governance." "American 'democracy' has existed for over 200 years, and citizens are ready, as they have been for decades, if not centuries, to finally control their own country" ("Electoral College Problems"). Therefore the use of the Electoral College is completely useless and should be abandoned to the idea of the popular vote. If not completely thrown out, then altered by an amendment. Under the form of the present college, it is noticeable that almost all of the third party candidates are not even glanced at. Most people don't even know their

The Importance of the Electoral College Essay

The Electoral College was first introduced to America at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, However, the idea behind the Electoral College can be traced back to the Roman

Argumentative Essay On Electoral College

Despite the Electoral College system being founded by the founding fathers in America and being there as long as the Constitution exists, many people still do not have sufficient knowledge on how it works. The Electoral College does not provide honest presidential elections rather it has the potential to undo the will of people at any point from the selection of electors to the vote tallying in Congress (Shaw, 3). Electoral College in the United States has played a major role in depressing the voter's turnout. Every State is given an equal number of electoral votes despite the population and in turn, the system has put in place no measure to encourage the voters to take part in the elections. Besides, the system distorts

Why the Electoral College Should Be Abolished Essay

Another reason to abolish the outdated Electoral College is the fact that it's sheer design supports the two party system and gives third parties very little, if no chance at all of having a candidate nominated. Shouldn't we have a system which allows more than just two parties to vie for the presidency? A better suited candidate from a third party could exist but the design of the system allows for very little chance of succeeding. As long as the Electoral College is in place there will not be a chance for alternative

The Electoral And Electoral College

The Electoral College gained its origins when our countries fore fathers gathered at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and began brainstorming on different methods to elect a President. The Electoral College at the time was created to be a

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 went over several systems that were proposed for electing a new president which included but were not limited to by the governors of the states, by the state legislators, and by direct popular vote. The issue was soon referred to the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, where the plan for the current electoral college was devised. The electoral college issued each state a number of electors equal to the sum of the

Argumentative Essay On The Electoral College

The history of the Electoral college goes back to 1804 to the framers of the constitution. Many of the nations founding fathers actually did not trust direct democracy and wanted to create a system that had balance between power of the people and power of the government. As James Madison described , he was worried about “ factions” in democracy. “These groups of citizens with a common interest in a proposal that would violate the right of citizens or the nation as a whole” (Joe Miller), Madison's fear which Alexis de Tocqueville later named as the “tyranny of majority”, was that these factions could become the fifty percent and win the majority. Subsequently delegates proposed a variety of different methods to elect the president in order for this to not occur. According to Joe Miller’s article the delegates voted more than 60 times before they finally chose a

The Constitution Of The United States Essay

In 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America worked together to identify the best way to elect the President (Patterson, 2013). The ideas suggested varied and ranged from selection by members of congress chosen by lottery, to a popular vote of the people. By the end of the Convention the matter had yet to be settled as the framers fore saw that many of the suggestions were prone to corruption, error, and were very chaotic. The issue was passed down to the Committee on Postponed Matters, who in turn created the system that is used today and is commonly known as Electoral College (Kazin, 2011). The Electoral College was outlined by the Committee to up hold the views of the founding fathers, who were the framers of the Constitution.

The Pros And Cons Of The Electoral College

Candidates campaigning to all of america instead of the populous states. - Candidates should campaign in every state and if the electoral college was reformed candidates would have to campaign in every state because every vote would matter.

The Electoral College Essay

I choose to agree with the Electoral College. I don’t want a direct popular election because I want the smaller states to still have a voice, but, if America switches to direct popular election, the way things are, might just go worse. There are some good reasons for a direct popular election, and there are not good reasons for one too. I like the Electoral College a lot, and I would like the voting system to keep it that way. However, our founding fathers created the Electoral College, being the geniuses they are, created a good way to elect a president that would not cause chaos or havoc in the country.

Essay on The Electoral College Should Be Revised

• 5 Works Cited

This system needs to be put to an end. The American people are well enough informed to elect their own president without the aide of an Electoral College. The electors in the Electoral College do not actually make decisions anyway. They are just figurative for they should vote along their state’s popular vote, even though most are not legally bound to do so. Even though the electors’ votes reflect that of their state’s popular vote, the views of the people are not always represented. If one candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, and the other candidate receives 49.9 percent, the candidate with only .2 percent more of the popular vote receives all of that states electoral votes. This system is also very unfair to the third party candidate. He/she has very little chance of receiving any electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the national

The Electoral College System Is Not Effective

The Constitution of the United States of America created a system called the Electoral College where it outlines the rules in which we elect the President of the United States of America. As stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution created the Electoral College. Each state receives as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives. Therefore, each state, including the District of Columbia, will have at least three electors. This is the vision of the Constitution. Now the problem arises when all the Electoral votes from one state are given to the popular winner for that state. This causes a with people’s right to chose their leader as votes of the people that voted for the losing candidate are tossed in the trash. All this while giving the state the ultimate power to elect the president.

Essay about How Works Electoral College

Write an essay that explains how the Electoral College works. How does the Electoral College shape the strategy of candidates? Why is it harder to win presidential elections post 1968?

Electoral College Vs Popular Vote

Another thing riling protestors is the fact that the electoral college can vote against the popular vote. This diminishes the voice of American voters. With the current system, our vote is indirect. Essentially, we’re voting for electors to vote on our behalf. American voters hope the electors will vote in favor of the popular vote but this is mote always the case; there has been multiple times in history that a candidate has lost the popular vote and still won the presidency.

The Electoral College System Essays

Under the current system there are five hundred and thirty eight electors. Each state gets one elector, each representative, and a senator. A presidential candidate needs two hundred and seventy votes to win the election. The electors meet after the November popular election to cast their votes and officially elect the president. Electors may vote for whomever they wish. Each state's electoral votes are awarded on a winner take all bases.

Election Vs Electoral College

The experience I have pertaining to the subject of the election is that I am dissatisfied with the result of the two nominees and most of my peers agree with me that this election is atrocious. I know that there are more people that do not want either candidates and is searching for another option, which is why there was a small but noticeable boost of support for both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. There are many people that want the two other parties to be a part of the primary debates. I have not written about this subject at all and I didn’t really care about politics until now. I expect to learn about more the process of the election like how delegates and electoral college works. The areas that stand out to me as important would be how

Related Topics

• President of the United States
• Electoral College
• Voting system

Review Of Hillary's Popular Vote Holdouts On Collision Course With History

The article Hillary’s Popular Vote Holdouts on Collision Course with History was very interesting, in my opinion. In the beginning, the author spoke about how the popular vote has basically no meaning behind it, the candidate can win the popular vote and still be far from winning the election due to the votes in the electoral college. I do not believe that this is how elections should be run. Candidates should win based on the entire population that voted and the government that they want to live under, not a few government officials. Elections have now turned into a competition where the candidates are not running to please the people anymore, but please the government. As Polizette stated, “No one, including Hillary Clinton, was trying to …show more content…

Football games are decided by the final score at the end, but the points that are scored in between are counted as well, not just the last one that was scored. This is exactly how the election should be run. The government should take into account every point that each candidate gains through the popular and electoral vote and total the points at the end to see who won. Polizette then went on to speak about the responsibilities that each state has their own legal power and control over, “The United States is not just a union of individuals — it is also a Union of States. Under our system, the states are not merely provinces to carry out instructions from Washington; they are the building blocks of the nation, with legal power and meaning of their own.” But, I believe that they are contradicting themselves with what they said before. They had said previously that each state 's popular votes do not matter, but now they are saying that each state has their own rights which, in turn, helps to create the United States of

Electoral College Pros And Cons

The way is doesn’t reflect popular vote is because people think that their vote doesn’t matter to the voting of the president. The way it lowers the turnout is because it makes

Pros And Cons Of The Electoral College

Proponents of the Electoral College argue that state viewpoints are more important than political minority viewpoints. We shouldn’t tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and state governments. Overall, they believe that the Electoral College has functioned for over 200 years and find the existing system extremely efficient because they feel that electors represent their constituents Proponents of the Electoral College believe that a popular vote would create numerous deficiencies in the system by making candidates too uniform and making them liable to deceptions of the truth (Pass or Fail, 2000). Why change a system that has functioned and elected a handful of respected and successful presidents? The real question though is, has this system truly worked flawlessly for over 200 years, or do we just think it has?

Should We Abolish The Electoral College?

The Electoral College was the only way that would still give citizens a

Electoral College Should Be Abolished

Hence, the presidential campaign and election is shaped by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Second, the presidential election should be the vote of the people, not the Electoral College. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution during the summer of 1787, the first 3 words they wrote were “we the people.” They believed that power should solely come from the people and that we should be able to exercise it effectively. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the people of the United States don’t have much of a say in determining who they want as president, since the Electoral College is the primary institution that selects the president and vice president.

Argumentative Essay: Implementing The Electoral College

Being a person of politics yourself, you of all people should know that many compromises have been made over the course of the establishment of the United States. However, some of the compromises, like the electoral college, were made because of factors in the past and are now not needed in today’s modern democracy. While the electoral college once worked as a compromise in the past, it is an archaic system that unfairly represents the votes of citizens all across the nation. A popular vote should instead be utilized to fairly choose the people of power in this country and would better represent voters’ opinions. In implementing the electoral college, most states’ votes either go to one candidate or the other, leading to candidates to only campaign in swing states (Bradford Plumer 13).

The Abolition Of The Electoral College

The results of the election of 2000 will have implications on the United States for at least four years, and perhaps more. The day after the election, calls were already ringing out for the abolition of the Electoral College, along with as many calls defending it. This could indicate a sea change to how we elect our President - or it could amount to nothing at all. If nothing else, the election of 2000 renewed the prominence of the Constitution in the minds of the common

Essay On Should Electoral College Be Abolished

This includes the popular vote not being taken seriously as the people's wishes, the need for only 12 states to win and become president, and the neglection of other states and the attention given to the swing states. All represents that the Electoral college is not what is limiting the power of the government and giving the people what they want, but instead is what truly empowers the government and takes away the choice we Americans should have and posses. While this is what the electoral college is doing now the abolishment of the electoral college should take place in order to give the power back to the people. Do you want to keep living your life truly powerless in the decision of our next leader? Or do you want to give the power back to the people of the USA, and take back our power to choose the right

Argumentative Essay: Should The Electoral College Be Abolished?

The first article's main point is that the United States of America should not get rid of the electoral college, but do away with the popular vote instead. The popular vote does not pick the president, it merely choosing which party of electors will be able to cast their votes towards their candidate. The article also said that instead of the electors for each state be the state's senators and representatives, they should be people of that state, decided by a lottery held before the election day. The second article said that if the country gets rid of the electoral college, then it would be as though the country is handing the election to the states that have the highest populations (i.e. California and Texas).

Electoral College Dbq Analysis

In 1787, years after the founding of the United States, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the new nation would govern itself. The delegates understood that the need for a leader was necessary but still bitterly remembered how Britain abused of its power. The delegates agreed that the President and Vice President should be chosen informally and not based on the direct popular vote, thus gave birth to the Electoral College. The Electoral College is defined as “a body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president.” Since 1787 the Electoral College has been the system for voting in the United States, but with our nation ever more changing and growing it

Problem Of The Electoral College

The Electoral Process is a problem in the government due to creating possibilities for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote (it has happened at least four times out of the fifty-six presidential elections). Also the electoral college warps the presidential campaign by bringing about the candidates to grant extra weight to the narrow needs of the swing states. The electoral college system also deforms the one-person, one-vote principle of the democracy since electoral votes are not distributed according to population. The electoral college creates the probability of a 269-269 tie vote. The electoral college doesn’t exactly stick to the Constitution cause the Constitution says that an elector cannot vote for a vice presidential

Should Electoral College Be Abolished Dbq Essay

A country in which someone is democratically voted Comander in Chief.. Not because the voters of the country picked them, but because of an old, unfair method that brought the person into power.   The electoral college is a method in which representatives from states vote on a presidential candidate, not the state as a whole. This method has failed multiple times, as can be seen when the electoral college votes are compared to the popular vote.  Instead of using the electoral college to pick the president, the United States should instead move to using the popular vote to pick the president.  Using the popular vote would insure that who is picked for president is who the people wanted.

Argumentative Essay On Electoral College

(Black, 2012) So, while it is clear that the Electoral College was set up to ensure all states have a voice, it now seems to have the ability to take away the voice of the people. It is necessary to look at our voting process and make the necessary changes needed to ensure the process of electing our President represents the voice of the people. By switching to a majority vote we ensure that the voice of all people are not only heard, but are represented equally, which is how it should be under the one-person, one-vote

Essay On Electoral College

Candidates tend to spend a large portion of their time in these types of states to try and convert independents and members of the opposite party to vote for them. Some people argue that this swing state idea defeats the electoral college principle of evening out the power among the states, since the swing states get special attention. The other main issue is that the Electoral College often does not align with the popular vote. This argues against the evening out of power since, it matters more that a candidate collects more states than more people’s votes (“Understanding the Presidential Election”). In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton secured the

Dbq Essay On The Electoral College

Several years after the United States came to be, the Constitutional Convention met to determine how the new nation should govern itself. The delegates saw that it was crucial to have a president and vice president, but the delegates did not want these offices to reflect how the colonies were treated under the British rule. The delegates believed that the president’s power should be limited, and that he should be chosen through the system known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the electing of the president and vice president. Many citizens feel that the Electoral College goes against our nation’s principle of representative democracy, while others

Should Electoral College Be Abolished Essay

This is strictly why the Electoral College should be taken off the amendments and if not abolished. The Electoral College has failed three times in history, and the loser ended up winning because of state votes and not popularity votes. If we get rid of the Electoral College we will be able to vote directly, and citizens votes will be equal without having to worry about candidates cheating any kind of system for personal gain. Getting rid of the twelfth amendment will solve this issue like I have stated above, If we do not act; candidates will keep on deceiving the system. We’ve been trying to get rid of the Electoral College for the past couple years now, but we as the people have failed to act and therefore they will put it to the side and say “Don't worry, we will get to it”.

More about Review Of Hillary's Popular Vote Holdouts On Collision Course With History

Related topics.

• President of the United States
• United States
• United States presidential election

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:

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade – the decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years – has shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, with some prohibiting the procedure and others moving to safeguard it.

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion, based on two Pew Research Center polls: one conducted from June 25-July 4 , just after this year’s high court ruling, and one conducted in March , before an earlier leaked draft of the opinion became public.

This analysis primarily draws from two Pew Research Center surveys, one surveying 10,441 U.S. adults conducted March 7-13, 2022, and another surveying 6,174 U.S. adults conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. Here are the questions used for the March survey , along with responses, and the questions used for the survey from June and July , along with responses.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the 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 .

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. About six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s decision that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that abortion laws can be set by states, including 43% who strongly disapprove, according to the summer survey. About four-in-ten (41%) approve, including 25% who strongly approve.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and GOP leaners (70%) approve , including 48% who strongly approve.

Most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve of it (21%). Opinion among men is more divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the summer survey – little changed since the March survey conducted just before the ruling. That includes 29% of Americans who say it should be legal in all cases and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases. About a third of U.S. adults (36%) say abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

Generally, Americans’ views of whether abortion should be legal remained relatively unchanged in the past few years , though support fluctuated somewhat in previous decades.

Relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances. The March survey found that support or opposition to abortion varies substantially depending on such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening or whether a baby would have severe health problems.

While Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed, the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling. The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans’ views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this in 2007.

However, the partisan divisions over whether abortion should generally be legal tell only part of the story. According to the March survey, sizable shares of Democrats favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances, while majorities of Republicans favor abortion being legal in some situations , such as in cases of rape or when the pregnancy is life-threatening.

There are wide religious divides in views of whether abortion should be legal , the summer survey found. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).

In the March survey, 72% of White evangelicals said that the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” reflected their views extremely or very well . That’s much greater than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (32%), Black Protestants (38%) and Catholics (44%) who said the same. Overall, 38% of Americans said that statement matched their views extremely or very well.

Catholics, meanwhile, are divided along religious and political lines in their attitudes about abortion, according to the same survey. Catholics who attend Mass regularly are among the country’s strongest opponents of abortion being legal, and they are also more likely than those who attend less frequently to believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has rights. Catholic Republicans, meanwhile, are far more conservative on a range of abortion questions than are Catholic Democrats.

Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling.

More than half of U.S. adults – including 60% of women and 51% of men – said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy . Just 3% of U.S. adults said men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say.

The March survey also found that by some measures, women report being closer to the abortion issue than men . For example, women were more likely than men to say they had given “a lot” of thought to issues around abortion prior to taking the survey (40% vs. 30%). They were also considerably more likely than men to say they personally knew someone (such as a close friend, family member or themselves) who had had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) – a gender gap that was evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms , the March survey found. Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say having an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. An additional 21% do not consider having an abortion a moral issue.

Among Republicans, most (68%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Only about three-in-ten Democrats (29%) hold a similar view. Instead, about four-in-ten Democrats say having an abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say it is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say having an abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view having an abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see having an abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

• Religion & Abortion

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many countries, especially in europe, nearly a year after roe’s demise, americans’ views of abortion access increasingly vary by where they live, by more than two-to-one, americans say medication abortion should be legal in their state, most latinos say democrats care about them and work hard for their vote, far fewer say so of gop, 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
• Politics & Policy
• 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

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Hundreds of Jan. 6 Prosecutions—Including Donald Trump’s—Are Suddenly in Peril at the Supreme Court

Will the Supreme Court jeopardize the prosecution of more than 350 defendants involved with Jan. 6, including Donald Trump, by gutting the federal statute that prohibits their unlawful conduct? Maybe so. Tuesday’s oral arguments in Fischer v. United States were rough sledding for the government, as the conservative justices lined up to thwap Joe Biden’s Department of Justice for allegedly overreaching in its pursuit of Jan. 6 convictions. Six members of the court took turns wringing their hands over the application of a criminal obstruction law to the rioters, fretting that they faced overly harsh penalties for participating in the violent attack. Unmentioned but lurking in the background was Trump himself, who can wriggle out of two major charges against him with a favorable decision in this case.

There are, no doubt, too many criminal laws whose vague wording gives prosecutors near-limitless leeway to threaten citizens with decades in prison. But this isn’t one of them. Congress wrote a perfectly legible law and the overwhelming majority of judges have had no trouble applying it. It would be all too telling if the Supreme Court decides to pretend the statute is somehow too sweeping or jumbled to use as a tool of accountability for Jan. 6.

Start with the obstruction law itself, known as Section 1552(c), which Congress enacted to close loopholes that Enron exploited to impede probes into its misconduct . The provision is remarkably straightforward—a far cry from the ambiguous, sloppy, or muddled laws that typically flummox the judiciary. It’s a mainstay of the Department of Justice’s “Capitol siege” prosecutions, deployed in about a quarter of all cases. Overall, 350 people face charges under this statute, Trump among them , and the DOJ has used it to secure the convictions of about 150 rioters . It targets anyone who “corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” And it clarifies that an official proceeding includes “a proceeding before the Congress.”

The government argues that some rioters attempted to “obstruct” an “official proceeding” by halting the count of electoral votes through “corrupt” means. That includes Joseph Fischer, the defendant in the current case. Fischer, who served as a police officer before Jan. 6, allegedly texted that the protest “might get violent”; that “they should storm the capital and drag all the democrates [sic] into the street and have a mob trial”; and that protesters should “take democratic congress to the gallows,” because they “can’t vote if they can’t breathe..lol.” Video evidence shows Fischer assaulting multiple police officers on the afternoon of Jan. 6 after breaching the Capitol.

Would anyone seriously argue that this person did not attempt to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding? For a time, it seemed not: 14 of the 15 federal judges—all but Judge Carl Nichols in this case—considering the charge in various Jan. 6 cases agreed that it applied to violent rioters bent on stopping the electoral count. So did every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit except one, Judge Gregory Katsas. Both Nichols and Katsas were appointed by Trump. Their crusade to kneecap the law caught SCOTUS’ attention, and the court decided to intervene despite overwhelming consensus among lower court judges. The Supreme Court’s decision will have major implications for Trump: Two of the four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith in the former president’s Jan. 6 prosecution revolve around this offense. A ruling that eviscerates the obstruction law would arguably cut out the heart of the indictment.

At least three justices seem ready to do just that. Justice Clarence Thomas—back on the bench after yesterday’s unexplained absence —grilled Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar over the law’s application to Jan. 6. “There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past?” Thomas asked, as if to nail the Justice Department for inconsistency and reveal some improper motive for wielding the law against violent insurrectionists. Justice Neil Gorsuch trolled Prelogar by alluding to Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s infamous fire alarm incident . “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” he asked. Justice Samuel Alito joined in to ask about “protests in the courtroom” when an audience member interrupts the justices and “delays the proceeding for five minutes.”

“For all the protests that have occurred in this court,” Alito noted pointedly, “the Justice Department has not charged any serious offenses, and I don’t think any one of those protestors has been sentenced to even one day in prison.” Why, he wondered, weren’t they charged under the obstruction statute?

Alito, audibly angry, continued: “Yesterday protestors blocked the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and disrupted traffic in San Francisco,” he told Prelogar. “What if something similar to that happened all around the Capitol so … all the bridges from Virginia were blocked, and members from Virginia who needed to appear at a hearing couldn’t get there or were delayed in getting there? Would that be a violation of this provision?”

To be clear, this is trolling: There is simply no comparison between a violent attack on the Capitol and protests that take the form of civil disobedience. And these justices expressed no similar concern about an ongoing red-state effort to persecute peaceful protesters who participate in Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Gorsuch and Alito’s hypotheticals ignore the reality that there are two layers of protection between minor protests and this rather major law. First, the Constitution affords prosecutorial discretion to the executive branch, allowing the Department of Justice to decide when an illegal “protest” is dangerous enough to warrant the use of a criminal law like the obstruction statute. Second, prosecutors must always prove the alleged offense to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, creating a democratic check on the abusive use of a stringent law to punish a silly crime.

Prelogar highlighted this latter point, explaining that juries have indeed acquitted Jan. 6 defendants of obstruction. If prosecutors ever apply this (or any other) criminal statute to a questionable set of facts, they may always be thwarted by a jury. That is how the system is meant to work.

This kind of behavior from Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito is no surprise at this point. And the liberal justices countered them as best they could. What’s troubling is that the other conservative justices jumped in to join the pile-on. Chief Justice John Roberts insistently pressed Prelogar to prove that the Justice Department has interpreted and enforced the obstruction law consistently in the past. This question ignored the fact that, as Prelogar reminded the court, there has never been any crime like the assault on the Capitol , so the agency had no prior opportunity to apply the law in any similar way.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the Justice Department didn’t really need this statute because it has other laws at its disposal. “There are six other counts in the indictment here,” he told Prelogar. Why “aren’t those six counts good enough just from the Justice Department’s perspective given that they don’t have any of the hurdles?” Of course, the DOJ brought the obstruction charge specifically because it was more serious than the others; prosecutors felt an obligation to enforce Congress’ strong protections against intrusions on official proceedings, including those in the Capitol. Kavanaugh appears to think the DOJ should have settled for a smattering of lesser charges. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was not so obtuse; she earnestly worried that the statute was too broad and fished around for narrowing constructions. Yet she seemed unsatisfied with the many options Prelogar provided to keep the law limited to the most egregious interruptions of government business.

What all six justices seemed tempted to do was rip up Section 1552(c) because it happens to include another sentence that applies to the destruction of evidence and other official documents. Jan. 6 rioters didn’t destroy evidence, this argument goes, so they can’t be culpable under a law. That reading is untenable , something Prelogar impressively reinforced at every turn on Tuesday, but it may be attractive if a majority wants to defuse this statute before it’s used against Trump in a court of law.

Smith’s indictment of the former president for his participation in Jan. 6 doesn’t entirely hinge on obstruction. It does, however, weave obstruction into both the facts and the legal theory of the case, placing it at the center of a broader criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. If SCOTUS defuses the law now, Smith would have to scrap two of four charges and restructure the entire indictment, making it that much easier for Trump to demand further delay and, eventually, evade a conviction.

The justices know this. They should have been on their best behavior on Tuesday to avoid any glimmer of impropriety. It was already profoundly disturbing that Thomas sat on the case given his wife’s involvement with the attempt to overturn the election. The other justices’ faux concern about overcriminalization of protesters only added to the foul smell emanating from arguments. There’s no telling how Fischer will turn out; maybe the liberal justices will help their colleagues rediscover their better angels behind the scenes. From Tuesday’s vantage point, though, the argument was a bleak reminder of how easy it is for cloistered jurists to wish away the massive stakes of a case like this.