The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College: Re-examining the American Electoral System

Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the Electoral College has been the voting system used to elect the President of the United States. The number of electoral votes attributed to each state is determined by the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. The Electoral College was created partly as a compromise between states that wanted a popular vote and states that wanted the President to be elected by the Senate; it was not a theory of governance or political ideology but a political compromise. The Electoral College should be removed and the election for the President of the United States should be switched to a popular vote because elections under the Electoral College system are unfair, most Americans prefer a popular vote, and a popular vote is more democratic, upholding the “one person, one vote” principle. Historians have criticized the Electoral College since its inception for being undemocratic and worse than the other option, a popular vote. A popular vote means simply counting every vote in the country; the winner is then the candidate that receives the most votes. In the past 200 years, “more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College.” That is more proposed Constitutional Amendments than on any other subject.

The biggest challenge to removing the Electoral College is that the majority party (currently the Republicans) believes the Electoral College is just fine because it keeps them relevant. After all, the Republicans would not have won the elections in 2000 and 2016 if they were by a popular vote. In 2016, 69% of Republicans said they would prefer to keep the electoral college. Of course, this is just after Trump won the election without winning the popular vote.

For a country that prides itself on its freedom and democracy, the United States has a system of voting for a President that fails democracy. In 2000, the Republican candidate, George Bush, won the Presidency without winning the popular vote – the first time since 1876. In 2016, the Republican candidate (this time Donald Trump) again won the Presidency while losing the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. Popular vote elections are much more democratic because the winner is simply the person who wins more votes, not the candidate who is the most popular in key swing states. Also, popular votes are much kinder to third-party candidates and provide more competition besides the two major political parties. For example, in 1992 Ross Perot, an independent candidate, won 19 percent of the popular vote but he “did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state.” Even if the election was held by popular vote Ross Perot would not have won, he would have done better than he did in the electoral college, with zero electoral votes.

Since the Electoral College was created in 1788, the elections it has produced have been unfair. For example, a vote in Massachusetts matters much less than a vote in Georgia. Massachusetts will vote Democratic, so candidates spend little time and money there. Georgia is a swing state with lots of electoral votes, so candidates are more inclined to campaign there. Also, a group of voters concentrated in a few states can have a big impact, even if they are the national minority. The electoral college can be manipulated as exemplified by George Wallace, the former Governor of Alabama. Wallace, a famous segregationist best known for his line “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” hoped to get just enough electoral votes to stop the other two candidates, Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, from getting the 270 electoral votes needed to win. If no candidate gets 270 votes, the decision goes to the House of Representatives, where Wallace hoped he could win. Wallace’s plan might have worked had his running mate, Curtis LeMay not said that he was not opposed to nuking Vietnam. In a popular vote, this loophole Wallace hoped to win through would not exist.

Not only is removing the Electoral College imperative to American democracy’s future, but it is also very popular. After Wallace’s campaign in 1968 proved to many Americans that the electoral college was heavily flawed, “polling showed public support for the direct vote of the president at 80 percent, up 22 points in two years.” Regardless that the Electoral College heavily favored him, as he beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968 by 110 electoral votes despite only receiving 800,000 more votes, Nixon approved an amendment to abolish the Electoral College in 1969. It sailed through the house, passing 339 to 70. The amendment was stopped in the Senate because segregationist senators from the South were happy with the Electoral College because it favored them, an overall minority. The Pew Research Center reports that in 2000, 61% of Americans favored changing the system to a popular vote, in 2012, 62%, and in 2024, 63%. Just because the Electoral College is unpopular in 2024 does not mean it needs to be removed, but the Electoral College has been unpopular for over 200 years.

While the United States is not a government defined by the will of the majority, who determines the President should be a popular vote because the President is the most powerful person in the country and should be decided by the direct will of the majority.