In 1968, republican Richard Nixon defeated democrat Hubert Humphrey to become president of the United States. In the Electoral College, Nixon defeated Humphrey 301 to 191, with American Independent George Wallace coming in third with 46. 

In the popular vote, Nixon only defeated Humphrey by around 500,000 votes out of 73 million cast, a margin of less than 1%.

This led to renewed questioning of the Electoral College, and in 1969 senator Birch Bayh proposed a constitutional amendment which would have eliminated the Electoral College and made the president elected by popular vote (if no candidate received over 40% of the vote in this proposed system, a runoff would be held between the two candidates with the most votes).

The amendment flew through the house, passing 339-70, and Richard Nixon gave his endorsement. But the Amendment was quickly filibustered by several Southern senators, including Strom Thurmond (who famously filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for over 24 consecutive hours). 

Jesse Wegman, author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, wrote that, “[Thurmond and his allies] knew that if Black voters could vote on equal terms with whites, which is what would happen during a popular vote, that advantage would disappear. For them, saving the electoral college was protecting their place in the racial hierarchy that their slaveholding ancestors had created.”

The Electoral College was and continues to be an undemocratic system that stands as an obstacle for the United States to become a real democracy.

It Disincentivizes Voting

The majority of Americans do not live in swing states, they live in states that are safely either Democratic or Republican. And because the electoral college is winner-take-all, votes for the losing candidate do not contribute anything to their electoral vote total. This means there is no practical reason for republicans in blue states or democrats in red states to vote for president.

In 2020, the state with the most Trump voters was California, but because Biden won California, those 6 million votes did not contribute anything to Trump’s electoral vote total.

Under a popular vote system, every American would have reason to vote, regardless of what state they live in.

It Values Some Voters More Than Others

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a population of 576,851. One Wyoming elector represents approximately 192,283 people. Contrast this with California, which has 55 electoral votes and a population of 39,538,223. One California Elector represents roughly 718,876 people. This means that a Wyoming voter has almost quadruple the influence of a California voter.

This is made worse by the fact that when you look at the demographics of these states. According to comparisons made by The Nation, white voters are overrepresented because of this trend, while Black, Asian and Hispanic voters are underrepresented. Under a popular vote system, this problem would not exist. One person would have one vote, and it would have the same weight everywhere.

Losers Can Win

The most obvious problem with the Electoral College is that the candidate with fewer votes can win. This has happened 6 times, in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. It almost happened again in 2020, as around 60,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district could have given Trump the 270 votes needed to win despite losing the popular vote to Biden by over 7 million. There is little purpose in even holding a presidential election if the number of votes a candidate receives is irrelevant.

It Encourages Voter Suppression

The number of electors that a state has is based on its number of representatives and senators. It is completely independent of the number of people who vote in a given election. This means that states can freely reduce the number of voters without needing to worry about losing representation. 

This was a very intentional part of the system, meant to give slave states greater influence in electing the president. In a direct vote, slave states would not have the boost of representation given to them through the 3/5ths compromise.

This was explicitly acknowledged by James Madison during the Constitutional convention. He wrote, “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.” 

What About Small States?

A frequent defense of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to pay attention to smaller states which would otherwise be ignored. Without the Electoral College, candidates would only pay attention to a few populous states. However, this is already a reality because of the Electoral College.

In 2020, the states with the most money spent on TV advertising were Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. These are, respectively, the 3rd, 5th, 10th, 9th, and 20th most populated states. Of the states in the top 10 of TV spending, only 3 are in the bottom 25 in terms of population: Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

Furthermore, only 17 states held presidential campaign events in 2020. Of those, 12 made up 96% of visits. Because states are winner-take-all, candidates only devote resources to states which will have close results. They are completely free to ignore the rest of the country.

But How Can This System Be Changed?

The most straightforward answer is through a constitutional amendment. This would allow the Electoral College to be replaced by an untold number of voting systems. However, because the states that are overrepresented in the EC are also overrepresented in the Senate, this is unlikely to happen.

The current most practical option is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This compact currently consists of 15 states (Washington state included) and DC. Once the compact has enough states to total over 270 electoral votes, those states will send electors for the candidate that received the most votes, regardless of what the state chose. This would effectively undermine the Electoral College without having to go through Congress.

The Electoral College does not protect small states, what it does do is disincentivize voting, overrepresent voters from small states, makes campaigns focused on a select few states, allows candidates who received fewer votes to win, and allows states to suppress voting rights without their representation being changed. There are better ways to pick the president, and Americans should not let this broken system remain in place for another election cycle.

Photo by Ali Zifan/ CC BY 4.0