What about the Electoral College? Is this the best way?
Every four years, Americans head to the polls believing they’re directly choosing their next president. But is this the truth? Well, the reality is more complicated, and we are here to tell you more about this.
When you cast your ballot, you’re actually participating in an indirect election through a system called the Electoral College. This is a mechanism that has triggered some heated debates recently. Some are totally in for it, while others consider it unfair. As you might expect, the truth is somewhere in between, and this is why we want to list the pros and cons.
The Electoral College wasn’t designed by accident. It was created by the founders of America, and this was meant to be a system that made a compromise possible. They wanted Congress to select the president and allow a direct popular vote.
They worried that voters in the 1700s couldn’t make informed decisions about candidates from distant states, and they wanted to balance the influence between large and small states.
But in our modern, interconnected world, many question whether this 18th-century solution still serves 21st-century democracy. So, does the Electoral College strengthen or weaken American democracy?
How Americans really feel about the Electoral College
If we were to look at the statistics, all we can see is tension. According to Pew Research Center data, an overwhelming majority of Democrats, 80%, favor replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote system. This was also amplified by the recent events when the Democratic candidates won more total votes but lost the presidency.
On the other hand, Republicans are more divided regarding this issue. While 53% support keeping the current system, 46% would prefer to see it replaced.
Also, geographic and demographic patterns contribute a lot to the opinions of Americans. People who live in urban areas feel betrayed as their vote might weigh less, while those from rural areas are glad for the extra advantage they get.
These polling numbers aren’t just academic. It’s simple to say that they reflect a frustration tied to old systems that are still being used in today’s world. Some feel like this is fundamentally undemocratic, while others claim that the Electoral College is exactly what protects democracy from the tyranny of large population centers.
Protecting small state influence
This is one of the strongest arguments that protect the Electoral College. This strategy might be old, but it has federalism in mind. The main goal is to make sure that less populous states maintain meaningful influence in presidential elections.
Experts say that without this system, the electoral campaigns would focus on major metropolitan areas where they could efficiently reach the most voters. For example, California’s Los Angeles County alone has more residents than 41 entire states. Then New York City’s five boroughs have more people than 39 states.
In this case, if presidential elections were based on popular vote, why would anyone campaign in states such as Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska?
Encouraging coalition building
In order to win the Electoral College, candidates should appeal to as many people as possible. They can’t simply focus on turning out their base in friendly territory because this will never be enough for them to win.
As a result, this encourages competition. Candidates need to address issues that matter to voters in different regions. A candidate who only appeals to urban professionals or rural farmers is unlikely to secure a win. In order to win, 270 electoral votes are needed, and this is not easy to achieve.
This is also how coalitions are built. In this way, it is easier to appeal to a larger public and spread influence.
Providing clear, decisive outcomes
The Electoral College system is the one that gives us clear winners. Even when the popular vote is extremely close, this method solves the problem of deciding a winner. This is an advantage because it sustains the democratic functions by reducing post-election disputes and ensuring smooth transitions of power.
In a pure popular vote system, razor-thin national margins can create terrible disputes and nationwide recounts. This means weeks or months of uncertainty about who won. Instead, the Electoral College provides legitimacy and finality to election results.
Disputes can still appear, but instead of turning everything into a nationwide phenomenon, they are typically limited to one or two swing states rather than requiring a national recount. A good example of this would be the 2000 Florida recount. It was controversial, but thanks to the Electoral College, it was far more manageable than a nationwide recount would have been.
Excessive focus on swing states
One of the weaknesses of the Electoral College system is that those living in swing states receive disproportionate attention while those in “safe” states are largely ignored. Most presidential candidates focus all of their power, influence, and funds on these decisive states and tend to almost completely ignore the states where they think they’ve already won.
The problem is that this approach distorts both campaign attention and policy priorities. For example, the most important issues for voters in non-competitive states receive less attention. This creates a feeling of unfairness that is not helping in the long run.
Even more, the issues of the swing states gain outsized attention in national politics. A good example of this would be how ethanol subsidies remain popular partly because of Iowa’s swing state status.
Reinforcement of the two-party system
The approach promoted by the Electoral College system, the winner-take-all structure, is one of the most important factors when it comes to America’s two-party system. Any third-party candidate needs to face enormous barriers, as they need to win entire states, not just accumulate votes nationwide. Alternative voices are not easily heard in this political landscape, so the existing system remains king.
Whether this is positive or negative depends on your perspective. Some argue that this two-party system offers stability and forces a coalition within parties. Those who oppose consider that only two options limit the choice of the voters and also prevent new ideas from entering the political landscape.
The 1992 election is a good example of this. Ross Perot got about 19% of the popular vote, but he didn’t win any states outright; therefore, he didn’t get any electoral votes. In a system where people vote, this amount of support may have given third-party movements more power and legitimacy.
Contradicting democratic principles
This is probably the biggest criticism people have of the Electoral College. This is a system that produces voters who have fewer votes than their opponents. And if you think about it, this is not democratic at all, right? For many Americans, this outcome feels fundamentally illegitimate.
The 2016 election is a very good example of that. Hillary Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump nationwide, yet Trump became president. This outcome raises serious questions about democratic legitimacy. How can a system be democratic when a candidate with few votes can win?
Do you want to understand better how the Electoral College works? This book might help!
If you want to read more interesting topics, we recommend this one: Iconic Political Ads That Swayed U.S. Elections