With the Revolutionary War coming to a close, America was ready for independence and freedom from George III and future monarchs’ authoritarian rule. But with the brand new country came the need to figure out what it would be, who would lead it, and how the leader would be selected. Some of America’s most brilliant yet troubled minds of the late 1700s, including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, debated ceaselessly about how the selection process would work, ultimately leading to the compromise still used today: the Electoral College.
For centuries and most recently in the U.S. presidential elections of 2000 and 2016, the Electoral College has been the center of controversy on matters of fairness and representation when Americans vote. When learning about the Electoral College and seeing the election process in action, many questions have been brought to light, such as “Were the Founding Fathers wrong on this one?” and “Does this system even work?”. Throughout its history, the most central question regarding the Electoral College has always been “Should we abolish the College?”, and along with this question comes the need to figure out what would replace it.
A Brief Rundown of the Electoral College
So. you may be asking what is the Electoral College anyway?
The Electoral College is a collection of electors, known as delegates, whose job is to choose who has won presidential elections. The total number of delegates, 538, is determined by each of the 50 states’ two senators, and the number of individuals each state has in the House of Representatives totaled up. This number adds up to 535 total electors, with three added on from the District of Columbia, making 538 electors overall. Each of these electors casts an electoral vote for president. For example, in the 2020 election, Joe Biden won California, giving him 55 electoral votes. After this, each of California’s 55 electors placed a vote for him. At the same time, Donald Trump won the state of Ohio, giving him 18 electoral votes, and, after this, each of Ohio’s 18 electors placed a vote for him.
The 2020 election--an election that will undoubtedly go down as one of the most, if not the most historic election in U.S. history--ended with Joe Biden winning 306 electoral votes to Donald Trump’s 232, This resulted in Joe Biden winning the election because a candidate must win a majority (270) of the 538 electoral votes to win the presidency. Although the overall winner is determined once all the electoral votes are tallied up, losing candidates can request recounts in states that show very close margins between the candidates in hopes of actually winning that state by identifying small calculation errors by humans or machines that may have altered the results. The Trump administration and campaign executed recounts after the 2020 election in hopes of winning close states like Wisconsin.
In many states, electors are required by law to vote for whichever candidate won the state in the election. Still, there have been a few instances of “faithless electors” in the past (one of the most notorious examples taking place in 2004 when a Minnesota elector cast a vote for a man named “John Ewards” -- [click this link for the full story]), but the chance that this will happen enough times during a singular electoral voting process to make a difference in the election’s overall outcome is one that Americans do not have to worry about.
The History of the Electoral College
In America’s earliest chapters, the first electoral system was designed to elect presidents very differently than today. In its first election, the Electoral College unanimously selected Washington as president and gave John Adams the vice-presidential role. Back in this time, presidents did not tweet (1), and news networks weren’t around to broadcast presidential speeches or campaign events the moment they began. Because of this, the idea of allowing the people to vote for president was a bit crazy, as many of the people living in America weren’t able to get information and news about what was happening minutes or even seconds after things happened. Thus, it was decided that the people would indirectly vote for president through a collection of informed people known as the Electoral College, making a system in which the popular vote would not determine the election but the collection of electoral votes would.
After George Washington served his time as president, the Electoral College continued to work pretty well. It wasn’t until the election of 1800 that the system’s problems came to light. Contrary to the popular belief introduced by Hamilton: An American Musical in which a song titled “The Election of 1800” (2) recounts that election’s events, the election did not primarily feature Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr against each other. In fact, Aaron Burr was originally Thomas Jefferson’s running mate.
Back in this era, there were only 138 electoral votes, with 70 being the majority needed to win. In the election, it was thought that John Adams would be Jefferson’s primary or even only opponent, but because separate ballots saw individual votes cast for both Jefferson and Burr, a tie in electoral votes was reached between the running mates. To this day, whenever a tie takes place in a presidential election, the House of Representatives (HOR) selects the winner. In 1800, however, the Federalist Party led by Alexander Hamilton--one of Thomas Jefferson’s most significant enemies--was in control of the HOR.
To many people’s surprise, Alexander Hamilton supported Thomas Jefferson in the tiebreaker, stating, “Jefferson is in every view less dangerous than Burr,”2 a statement that helped influence Federalist support for Jefferson and win him the election, as well as a statement that may or may not have directly led to Hamilton’s death four years later. As president, Jefferson and his followers, the Jeffersonians (3), decided the American voting system needed a change to ensure that a situation like a tie in 1800 wouldn’t happen again--a change that would eventually lead to the current American voting system.
Of course, like any other policy change in American history, this brought on a great deal of debate between policymakers. In early discussions, Federalist Senator Uriah Tracy argued to keep the voting system as it was. Tracy approved of the system and the fact that it allowed underdog parties to win elections by manipulating them. The point was mentioned earlier that presidential candidates and vice-presidential candidates could be voted for separately; it was common practice by underdog supporters in the early days of American democracy to win by voting for the vice-presidential candidate of the party they opposed, causing there to be no way for the presidential candidate in that party to win the election, the same course of action that led to the Burr/Jefferson tie. Imagine, if you will, this system being used today in the 2020 presidential election. Trump supporters could rig the system by voting for Kamala Harris, making sure there would be no way for Joe Biden to get the majority of votes, and vice versa with Biden supporters voting for Mike Pence.
In opposition to people like Tracy pushing for such practices, the Electoral College’s current form was born in which electors had to vote for one candidate in either party. Did this lead to fairness and peace between Americans on the subject of the electoral vote then?
No. Not at all.
While new changes and legislation regarding America’s voting system did fix the problem of underdog supporters manipulating the votes, many bad outcomes were still possible in this voting system. In 1796, adding more parties led to huge messes in voting tallies, and in 1800, it took 36 attempts to break election ties. However, the biggest, most controversial problem of the Electoral College has emerged through five different elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 when the losers of the popular vote were able to win due to the election being so close that they could grasp the majority of electoral votes. However, before we get to that, let’s go over both system pros and cons more in-depth to better understand the Electoral College debate.
Electoral College: Pros & Cons
Commonly Argued Pros
Argued Pro 1:
The Electoral College Provides A Clean, Widely Accepted Ending to an Election
With 270 being the critical majority of electoral votes in a presidential election, the first candidate to reach it is elected president. Thus, the number provides a clear end to the election. With that number of votes being met, there is no real need for a national recount unless the totals are much closer. This number also helps provide a smooth transition of power. Throughout American history, most presidents have agreed that the voting system is safe and secure and that the incumbent must be treated with respect following certification of electoral votes. Sometimes, presidents decide not to, which can lead to extreme incidents like the January 6, 2021 storming of the US Capitol building that led to the deaths of five people.
Argued Pro 2:
The Electoral College Makes it Easier for Candidates to Campaign
Some states in America are “safe states” for candidates. For example, California is a primarily liberal state, so Democratic candidates don't need to spend time making campaign stops in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Democrats can also entirely skip visiting places like Redding, California, a city in a mostly Republican county, due to how many more votes they will receive in other parts of the state that will lean towards the Democratic party. The same goes for Republican safe states like Alabama. While Alabama does feature mostly liberal cities and counties, the election results almost always favor Republicans as there are many more Republican communities. Because of these facts, “swing states” that are equally likely to vote for a Republican or Democrat are focused on more during elections.
Argued Pro 3:
The Electoral College Keeps Smaller States Relevant in National Politics
When viewing election results maps like the one to the right, many can take the colors on the American map alone--with Red states representing republican-won states and Blue states representing Democrat-won states--to be an obvious Trump victory. Take a look at the area covered by California. This state covers almost as much ground as Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma do altogether. However, comparing just how many people live in California to the other three states, there is a vast difference. There is a difference in population between the two areas of almost 31 million individuals, with 75% more people living in the state of California alone. Still, when America is choosing its leaders, every candidate should have the best interests of every city and state in mind. It is often argued that cities like New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago would control elections if the Electoral College were to be abolished. It is believed that candidates would then spend all their time campaigning in those populous cities, which instills fear and thoughts that candidates would focus primarily on what issues these cities and those like them face. Because of the Electoral College, however, smaller states can have an impact on elections.
Commonly Argued Cons
Argued Con 1:
The Electoral College Can Make Americans Feel Like Their Voices Don't Matter
If you are a Democrat living in a “red state”, chances are that you have realized that your vote for president may not matter on many occasions. In direct contrast to “Argued Pro 2: The Electoral College Makes it Easier for Candidates to Campaign.”, having safe states in America makes some votes seem less valuable than others. Because the winner of the popular vote doesn’t automatically take home the presidency, many people who live in safe states may just stay home and not vote at all. All Americans living in a democracy deserve to have their voices heard on a stage as important and consequential as the presidential election.
Argued Con 2:
The Electoral College Gives Too Much Power to the Swing States
The last point glides swiftly into the next issue of some states having more power than others. With the previous argument focusing on safe states being a problem for Americans not feeling their voices are heard, swing states can cause the same problem. While blue safe states like California, New York, and Illinois typically vote for Democrats and red safe states like Louisiana, Idaho, and Oklahoma vote for Republicans, swing states like Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania (4) have no real clear preference for either party. Thus, the electoral votes these states give to the candidates are crucial to the race to 270 electoral votes. As a result, Americans will see candidates campaigning in these states far more than other states they can easily win.
Argued Con 3:
The Electoral College Can Clash With the Popular Vote
This is the most prominent argument of all and the most significant part of the Electoral College debate. Happening twice in the twenty-first century alone in both 2000 and 2016, a candidate that won the popular vote in an election can lose the election due to not reaching a majority of 270 electoral votes. As mentioned earlier, this has happened a total of five times in American history. A glance at the 2016 election outcome can look like a Trump landslide at first, with Trump winning 74 more electoral votes than Clinton. However, a more in-depth look shows us that Clinton won the popular vote by about 2.8 million more votes than Trump--the most considerable difference in this kind of election outcome. The reality is that Trump won a majority of swing states by less than a percentage point: Wisconsin by 0.8%, Pennsylvania by 0.7%, and Michigan by 0.2%.
Pros & Cons: A Brief Review
Without a doubt, there is a lot to unpack here. When one views both sides of the debate with an open mind, one can find merit and easily dismissible claims. For example, Argued Pro 2: The Electoral College Makes it Easier for Candidates to Campaign, shouldn’t necessarily be a pressing argument. For starters, presidential candidates are running for what is widely accepted as the most crucial and influential position globally, for a title commonly referred to as the most powerful person in the world. If the campaign is a walk in the park for two years, how can we be sure candidates are willing to work hard for the next four years? It can be argued that the campaign can be challenging for the family, and that is true, but the people running are running for a position that has been notoriously filled with hardships along with prosperity for centuries, whether they end up immortalized as one of the best presidents in history or one of the worst.
Also, having candidates rely heavily on winning safe states can make political minority Americans feel like their voices will not be as valuable as those living in highly contested swing states--people who will undoubtedly be accustomed to seeing more campaign ads, more polls, etc., throughout election years. With America already having a low voter turnout for centuries in previous elections and even with 2020 being the election with the highest voter turnout of all time, many voters are still staying home, which only adds to concerns about fairness and representation.
This problem also relates to the issue with Argued Pro 3: The Electoral College Keeps Smaller State Relevant in National Politics. While that argument made hold merit, it does not ring true for those who wish to have an equal voting system. Take the state of Wyoming, for example. With its three electoral votes, there is one electoral vote for every 135,000 voters. California, on the other hand, has 55 electoral votes, or 1 for every 411,000 voters. This means that people living in smaller states do actually have more of a say in the election outcome.
Argued Pro 1: The Electoral College Provides A Clean, Widely Accepted Ending to an Election can be seen as a good argument if an election is indeed down to the wire with losing candidates given the opportunity for recounts, but in a country “run by the people, for the people,” the chance that the popular vote can lose to the electoral vote makes Argued Con 3: The Electoral College Can Clash With the Popular Vote come into play, with the obvious issue being that the people aren’t heard. Unfortunately for Republicans, it is true that in seven of the last eight elections, they have lost the popular vote and have only won due to the Electoral College’s count. This may be a concern for Republicans who could be faced with creating policies that most Americans who did not support the party’s candidate could support. Democrats may also feel concerned with the projection of losing more elections where the Electoral College’s outcome has silenced the majority of people who have spoken.
With all this talk on how broken the electoral system is, how can America make the voting process better?
Abolish or Reform?
A fix to many of the Electoral College problems is the idea of runoff elections in states where results are neck and neck. Considering the 2020 election outcomes, one sees the influence a third-party candidate can have on the results. This influence in states like Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin caused neither candidate to win 50% of these states’ votes. Further, this factor can be attributed to Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party, who went on to win 1% or more of the vote in these states and similar states. Without a doubt, if the Libertarian party weren’t as centralized as it is and leaned a bit more to either the left or right, significant changes would take place. One might even expect parties like the Libertarian party to win far more than 1% during presidential elections.
Essentially, when results like those in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin occur with neither candidate winning 50% of the vote, a runoff election would take place, a runoff election meaning a redo election only featuring the two leading candidates. Suppose the Libertarian party or any other third party leaned more to the left. In that case, it could be hypothesized that a majority of those who voted for the third-party candidate would vote for the Democratic candidate and vice versa. Even with the Electoral College still in place in this kind of scenario, this method would improve the voting system by providing fairer results.
A much easier method to improve the outcomes of presidential elections would be to abolish the Electoral College altogether and rely solely on the popular vote. Not only would this mean there would be no need for special attention on swing states, but candidates would also have to see the entire nation as a battleground. Previously, an argument was provided against the popular vote method stating that it would mean candidates would only focus solely on bigger cities and bigger states for votes. The idea that those living in the nation’s biggest cities could essentially control the vote has some merit, so how could America ensure that popular vote elections were conducted fairly and equally?
A method to fix that kind of problem is called the “Instant Runoff” method. Although the name sounds very similar to the original runoff method, it holds its own. The runoff method pertains to just the two leading candidates being featured in a second election, while the Instant Runoff method can allow for more candidates to be involved. This voting method envisions voters placing their votes for multiple candidates in order of preference.
Imagine an election with candidates A, B, C, D, and E all running for president. Voter Vicky has been paying attention to the election and heavily approves of candidate A. However, suppose candidate A wasn’t to win. In that case, she’d be happy with B and even candidate C winning the election and would be very disproving of either candidate D or E winning the election. On election day, she’d be given a ballot and would vote for her top three candidates in order of preference--A, then B, then C. Because everyone thinks a bit differently, a majority of ballots would be different. The following table in which 200 voters voted in the election shows the hypothetical results when all votes are tallied:
After the first tally, we can see that the majority number was not reached for any of the candidates, with the majority of 200 being 101. Because of this, those who voted for candidate C as their top candidate would have their number one vote taken away and the remaining two votes given to the other candidates. Let’s say 17 of the 20 C votes went to candidate B, no votes went to candidate D, two votes went to candidate A, and two votes went to candidate E.
At this moment, none of the candidates have reached the 101-vote majority, so the same process would happen again. First, candidate D would be eliminated as they would have the least votes, and the remaining votes would be given to candidates A, B, and E. Let’s say that ten votes went to candidate A, 17 votes went to candidate B, and 20 votes went to candidate E.
Once again, none of the candidates has reached the majority, so the candidate with the least votes is again eliminated--in this case, candidate A--and the votes remaining would be given to both candidates B and E. Let’s say 30 votes go to candidate B and 31 go to candidate E.
This is what the table looks like now:
Candidate E has won the very close election! With no Electoral College, it could be projected that elections would now be much closer. Not only would it be seen that all votes are equal, but this voting method would also definitely drive more Americans to vote in elections (“You no longer live in a ‘safe state!’ You absolutely NEED to vote!”). The most significant benefit of this method is the eradication of strategic voting. For centuries, elections have been a two-party game, with Republicans and Democrats being featured the most compared to any other party in American history. For those who dislike both parties and support the best of what both parties have to offer, this voting method would ensure that victory wouldn’t be that far off. More rallies would occur from all over the political spectrum and give the American people more ways to be educated in politics and develop different views outside the two-party system.
The Final Verdict
Abolish the college? Absolutely. But America has the chance to replace it with something much better rather than just relying on the most obvious solution. The Instant Runoff method is not perfect as ballots would be more expansive (and expensive), and the idea that everybody voting would pay attention to every candidate is laughable. Still, a common attitude amongst voters in both 2016 and 2020 was that they were voting for a candidate they didn’t actually want because they disliked the other candidate even more and because third party candidates never win with the current method, so there was really no point in even attempting to vote for one. The opinions shared in these elections combined with new voting methods like the Instant Runoff would result in the number of people paying attention to politics more than likely growing. With the Founding Fathers’ original idea of information not being shared quickly enough no longer being an issue due to the technology available nowadays and the rising acceptance of diversity and new ideas emerging in America, the Instant Runoff method may not be far from reality.
Overall, America is an experiment that sees so many needs for change, not just every year but every day. America, founded on the words “We the People,” needs to make sure that all people’s voices are heard and valued. With an Instant Runoff method, the phrase “We the People” may genuinely come to fruition in our voting system.
Footnotes
Welcome to footnotes!
The section of the essay where I will either add more information or tell jokes ;)
1. Forgive me
2. This song suuuchhhh a bopp ngl
3. "...when all is said and all is done, Jefferson has beliefs, Burr has none."
4. Some are saying that within the next few elections, Texas can be a swing state as well.
Comments