Should we Keep the Electoral College?
Short on time?
We consolidate every article and add some fun visuals for our email subscribers. We skip some background information, but otherwise it’s the same great content in a fun package. Check it out in the ‘5 Minute Version’ below and don’t forget to subscribe to get next week’s story delivered to your inbox.
KEY SOURCES
CATO Institute
U.S. House of Representatives
RAND
Brookings Institution
American Enterprise Institute
National Archives
Congress Archives
United States Census
WHY THIS QUESTION MATTERS:
Upon its founding, Alexander Hamilton described the Electoral College by saying, “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” Our Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between congress selecting the president and a popular vote.
But when the outcome of the popular vote doesn’t align with the outcome of the Electoral College, as was the case in 2016, some question the efficiency and fairness of the Electoral College. Several Presidential Candidates have even suggested it be abolished in favor of a national popular vote. But what are the implications?
A REFRESHER: HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS
For those of us that are a little rusty, here's our Civics 101 review: The United States President is not chosen by a national popular vote. Instead it is decided by Electoral votes.
Each state has a designated number of Electors that is equal to the number of Senators plus Representatives that the state is entitled to in the Congress. This means, there are a total of 538 total electors and a 270 majority is needed to elect the President. These Electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote in each state. In every state apart from Nebraska and Maine, the Electoral votes are rewarded on a winner-takes-all basis. Meaning, if Candidate A wins the popular vote in the state of Florida then all of Florida’s 29 Electoral votes will go to Candidate A, even if the candidate only won by a small majority in the state.
A LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
So, why does the Electoral College exist? When the Founding Fathers established the process for electing the President, there was no other country in the world that directly elected its chief executive. As mentioned, the Electoral College was a compromise between individuals who supported a pure popular vote and those that wanted Congress to elect the President. On one hand, there was concern that a popular vote would put the election in the hand of a “democratic mob.” Conversely, if Congress directly elected the President, there was concern of too much concentration of power and potential corruption.
The Electoral College was a compromise in that it leveraged the popular vote to determine a winner by state, but a body of electors from each state would ultimately determine the winner. It was also a compromise in that the South wanted slaves to be counted toward their state population (to give them additional Electoral Votes), even though slaves themselves didn’t have a right to vote. The “three-fifths compromise,” allowed every three out of five slaves to be counted to state population totals.
CALLS FOR CHANGE
According to the National Archives and Records Administration, since its establishment over 200 years ago, there have been over 700 proposals introduced in Congress to eliminate or reform the Electoral College. The US House of Representatives archives confirms, “The provisions for electing the President and Vice President have been among the most amended in the Constitution.” For example, originally the President and Vice President had separate ballots, meaning an individual OF one party may be elected President while an individual from an opposing party could be elected Vice President.
The last serious attempt to change the Electoral College began in 1966, when there were calls to move to a direct popular vote system. However, after extended floor debate the proposal was defeated, falling greatly short of the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution.
Rather than aim for an amendment to the Constitution, some states have signed a pact to effectively bypass the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. The pact would require that Electoral College votes go to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in individual states. For example, if the state of California’s popular vote towards a democratic candidate based on the state level popular vote, but a Republican won the national popular vote, then all of California’s Electoral votes would be awarded to the Republican candidate.
What do you think?
THE COMMON THREAD
Elections should be fair and represent the will of the people.
FIND YOUR THREAD
Supporters of the Electoral College say the system encourages candidates to build coalitions and pay attention to the entire country instead of a few populous mega-cities. Opponents of the Electoral College say that the system discourages candidates from paying attention to the entire country and instead focuses on a few battleground states.
Yes, we should keep the electoral college.
Reason 01
The Electoral college protects against the tyranny of the majority and it is working.
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a check against undiluted majority rule. By allowing indirect election of presidents, candidates must focus on state-based interests and avoid the “tyranny of the majority." This system was designed to address the risk that populist president could abuse a minority. (CATO Institute)
In more than 200 years, the electoral college outcome and popular votes have aligned in all but five elections, meaning the system is working. (U.S. House of Representatives)
Reason 02
Abolishing the electoral college would mean that large urban centers would dominate the political process at the expense of rural areas.
Without the Electoral College, candidates will cater to urban voters and skew the nation’s policies toward big-city interests. Campaign trails spanning the country to understand the interests of Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be abandoned in favor of mega-rallies in New York and Los Angeles. (CATO Institute)
While the majority of energy in the Electoral College system goes to “swing states,” these states have changed over time*. For example, California used to primarily vote Republican and Texas used to primary vote for Democratic candidates. Meanwhile, a popular vote will always be won in the biggest cities, meaning other interests may be ignored in perpetuity. *(RAND)
Reason 03
The Electoral College guarantees a winner.
“Imagine the problems that would arise, tensions that would exist, and the claims of illegitimacy likely to follow if the entire nation had to be counted, and then recounted to ascertain the results of the election.” In the 2000 Presidential Election - the results were incredibly close and a painstaking recount was required in Florida. However, because all other states had a clear majority at the state-level, a broader nation-wide recount was not required because of the Electoral College. (Brookings Institution)
By switching to a popular vote, it is likely that more than two parties would form as each party would simply need to get more votes than the next best performing party rather than the majority. (i.e. lobby groups and political parties will become one and the same forcing presidential elections based on abortion rights, gun laws, etc.) (American Enterprise Institute)
No, we should abolish the electoral college.
Reason 01
Presidents should be elected directly by the people; “one person, one vote.”
With the Electoral College, 538 electors determine the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, which represents over 320 million people. (National Archives)
Five times in our history the President of the United States has been sworn into office after receiving fewer votes from American citizens than their opponent because of the dynamics of the Electoral College. (Congress Archives)
Reason 02
The electoral college gives too much power to swing states.
Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates only need to pay attention to a limited number of battleground states. “If you're lucky to hit the right numbers, narrowly, in a few swing states, you may override your opponent's big margins in other states.” (Brookings Institution)
Heading into the 2016 presidential elections, 40 of the 50 states have voted for the same party since 2000. (Brookings Institution)
Reason 03
Small states are over-represented.
The Electoral College will systematically over-represent smaller states because each state is guaranteed two Electoral College votes regardless of population size. If you divide each state’s population size by the number of electors, you’ll find that a vote actually carries more weight in Wyoming than in California*. (United States Census)
“15 percent of American counties generate 64 percent of America’s gross domestic product. The prosperous parts of America include about 15 states having 30 senators while the less prosperous areas encapsulate 35 states having 70 senators.” (Brookings Institution)
Subscribe to our weekly email to cast your vote on a fresh topic every week.