electoral college debate essay

The Electoral College – Top 3 Pros and Cons

Pro/Con Arguments | Discussion Questions | Take Action | Sources | More Debates

The debate over the continued use of the Electoral College resurfaced during the 2016 presidential election , when Donald Trump lost the general election to Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes and won the Electoral College by 74 votes. The official general election results indicate that Trump received 304 Electoral College votes and 46.09% of the popular vote (62,984,825 votes), and Hillary Clinton received 227 Electoral College votes and 48.18% of the popular vote (65,853,516 votes). [ 1 ]

Prior to the 2016 election, there were four times in US history when a candidate won the presidency despite losing the popular vote: 1824 ( John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson ), 1876 ( Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden ), 1888 ( Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland ), and 2000 ( George W. Bush over Al Gore ). [ 2 ]

The Electoral College was established in 1788 by Article II of the US Constitution , which also established the executive branch of the US government, and was revised by the Twelfth Amendment (ratified June 15, 1804), the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified July 1868), and the Twenty-Third Amendment (ratified Mar. 29, 1961). Because the procedure for electing the president is part of the Constitution, a Constitutional Amendment (which requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress plus approval by 38 states) would be required to abolish the Electoral College. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a compromise between electing the president via a vote in Congress only or via a popular vote only. The Electoral College comprises 538 electors; each state is allowed one elector for each Representative and Senator (DC is allowed 3 electors as established by the Twenty-Third Amendment). [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]

In each state, a group of electors is chosen by each political party. On election day, voters choosing a presidential candidate are actually casting a vote for an elector. Most states use the “winner-take-all” method, in which all electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the popular vote in that state. In Nebraska and Maine, the candidate that wins the state’s overall popular vote receives two electors, and one elector from each congressional district is apportioned to the popular vote winner in that district. For a candidate to win the presidency, he or she must win at least 270 Electoral College votes. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]

At least 700 amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College. [ 25 ]

On Monday Dec. 19, 2016, the electors in each state met to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Of the 538 Electoral College votes available, Donald J. Trump received 304 votes, Hillary Clinton received 227 votes, and seven votes went to others: three for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle, one for John Kasich, one for Ron Paul, and one for Bernie Sanders). On Dec. 22, 2016, the results were certified in all 50 states. On Jan. 6, 2017, a joint session of the US Congress met to certify the election results and Vice President Joe Biden, presiding as President of the Senate, read the certified vote tally. [ 21 ] [ 22 ]

A Sep. 2020 Gallup poll found 61% of Americans were in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, up 12 points from 2016. [ 24 ]

For the 2020 election, electors voted on Dec. 14, and delivered the results on Dec. 23. On Jan. 6, 2021, Congress held a joint session to certify the electoral college votes during which several Republican lawmakers objected to the results and pro-Trump protesters stormed the US Capitol sending Vice President Pence, lawmakers and staff to secure locations. The votes were certified in the early hours of Jan. 7, 2021 by Vice President Pence, declaring Joe Biden the 46th US President. President Joe Biden was inaugurated with Vice President Kamala Harris on Jan. 20, 2021. [ 23 ] [ 26 ]

Should the United States Use the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?

Pro 1 The Electoral College ensures that that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States. If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily-populated areas or specific regions. To win the election, presidential candidates need electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore they build campaign platforms with a national focus, meaning that the winner will actually be serving the needs of the entire country. Without the electoral college, groups such as Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population densities, leaving rural areas and small towns marginalized. [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] Tina Mulally, South Dakota Representative, stated that the Electoral College protects small state and minority interests and that a national popular vote would be ““like two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.” Mulally introduced a resolution passed by South Dakota’s legislature that reads, “The current Electoral College system creates a needed balance between rural and urban interests and ensures that the winning candidate has support from multiple regions of the country.” [ 32 ] Read More

Pro 2 The Electoral College was created to protect the voices of the minority from being overwhelmed by the will of the majority. The Founding Fathers wanted to balance the will of the populace against the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the voices of the masses can drown out minority interests. [ 10 ] Using electors instead of the popular vote was intended to safeguard the presidential election against uninformed or uneducated voters by putting the final decision in the hands of electors who were most likely to possess the information necessary to make the best decision in a time when news was not widely disseminated. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] The Electoral College was also intended to prevent states with larger populations from having undue influence, and to compromise between electing the president by popular vote and letting Congress choose the president. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] According to Alexander Hamilton, the Electoral College is if “not perfect, it is at least excellent,” because it ensured “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” [ 7 ] Democratic Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak vetoed a measure in 2019 that would add the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would have obligated the state’s electors to vote for the popular vote winner. Governor Sisolak stated, the compact “could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.” [ 31 ] Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former commissioner for the FEC, explained, “The Framers’ fears of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ is still very relevant today. One can see its importance in the fact that despite Hillary Clinton’s national popular vote total, she won only about a sixth of the counties nationwide, with her support limited mostly to urban areas on both coasts.” [ 34 ] Read More

Pro 3 The Electoral College can preclude calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections, giving certainty to presidential elections. If the election were based on popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to receive the highest number of popular votes without actually obtaining a majority. [ 11 ] This happened with President Nixon in 1968 and President Clinton in 1992, when both men won the most electoral votes while receiving just 43% of the popular vote. The existence of the Electoral College precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections. [ 11 ] Richard A. Posner, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, further explained, “There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner.” [ 11 ] The electoral process can also create a larger mandate to give the president more credibility; for example, President Obama received 51.3% of the popular vote in 2012 but 61.7% of the electoral votes. [ 2 ] [ 14 ] In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only five times. This proves the system is working. [ 2 ] [ 14 ] Read More

Con 1 The Electoral College gives too much power to swing states and allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states. The two main political parties can count on winning the electoral votes in certain states, such as California for the Democratic Party and Indiana for the Republican Party, without worrying about the actual popular vote totals. Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates only need to pay attention to a limited number of states that can swing one way or the other. [ 18 ] A Nov. 6, 2016 episode of PBS NewsHour revealed that “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly two-thirds took place in the four battlegrounds with the most electoral votes — Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina.” [ 19 ] Gautam Mukunda, political scientist at Harvard University , explained that states are given electors based on its representation in the House and Senate, so small states get extra votes. Mukunda stated, “The fact that in presidential elections people in Wyoming have [nearly four] times the power of people in California is antithetical at the most basic level to what we say we stand for as a democracy.” [ 33 ] Read More

Con 2 The Electoral College is rooted in slavery and racism. The “minority” interests the Founding Fathers intended the Electoral College to protect were those of slaveowners and states with legal slavery. James Madison stated, “There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. 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.” [ 29 ] As Wilfred Wilfred Codrington III, Assistant Professor at Brooklyn Law School and a fellow at the Brennan Center, explained, “Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president… With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise [counting only 3/5 of the enslaved population instead of the population as a whole] as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.” [ 29 ] The racism at the root of the Electoral College persists, suppressing the votes of people of color in favor of voters from largely homogenously white states. [ 29 ] [ 30 ] Read More

Con 3 Democracy should function on the will of the people, allowing one vote per adult. There are over an estimated 332 million people in the United States, with population estimates predicting almost 342 million by 2024, the next presidential election. But just 538 people decide who will be president; that’s about 0.000156% of the population deciding the president. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than one million votes, yet still lost the election on electoral votes. [ 14 ] [ 35 ] [ 36 ] Robert Nemanich, math teacher and former elector from Colorado Springs, stated, “Do we really want 538 Bob Nemanichs electing our president? …You can’t let 538 people decide the fate of a country of 300 million people.” [ 28 ] Even President Donald Trump, who benefitted from the Electoral College system, stated after the 2016 election that he believes presidents should be chosen by popular vote: “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.” Just as in 2000 when George W. Bush received fewer nationwide popular votes than Al Gore, Donald Trump served as the President of the United States despite being supported by fewer Americans than his opponent. [ 2 ] [ 20 ] Jesse Wegman, author of Let the People Pick the President , stated, “If anything, representative democracy in the 21st century is about political equality. It’s about one person, one vote — everybody’s vote counting equally. You’re not going to convince a majority of Americans that that’s not how you should do it.” [ 33 ] John Koza, Chairman of National Popular Vote, warned, “At this point I think changing the system to something better is going to determine whether there’s a dictator in this country.” [ 27 ] Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should the Electoral College be abolished? Why or why not?

2. Should the Electoral College be modified? How and why? Or why not?

3. What other voting reforms would you make? Rank choice voting? Voter ID laws? Make a list and offer support for each reform. If you would not change the voting process, make a list of reforms and why you would not choose to enact them.

Take Action

1. Listen to a Constitution Center podcast exploring the pros and cons of the Electoral College.

2. Explore the Electoral College via the US National Archives .

3. Consider the American Bar Association’s fact check on whether the Electoral College can be abolished.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

More Election Debate Topics

Should People Who Have Completed Felony Sentences Be Allowed to Vote?  – The pros and cons of the felon voting debate include arguments about the social contract, voting while in prison, and paying debts.

Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16? – Proponents say teens are knowledgeable enough to vote. Opponents say kids aren’t mature enough to vote.

Should Election Day Be Made a National Holiday?  – Proponents say an election day holiday will increase voter turnout. Opponents say would disadvantage low-income and blue collar workers.

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Type search request and press enter

Should We Abolish the Electoral College?

Reading time min

Illustration: Steve Dinnino

Listen to this article:

Editor’s Note : In 2016, we asked two professors to debate whether the Electoral College should cease to be the mechanism used for selecting the U.S. president. Here are the yea and the nay.

By Jack Rakove, the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and a professor of political science.

In this extraordinarily strange election year, debating the Electoral College might seem an odd pastime when so many other issues concern us. But its logic, its distortion of the democratic process and its underlying flaws will still strongly influence the conduct of the election. So, let me make the case for its abolition and its replacement by a simple national popular vote, to be held in an entity we will call (what the heck) the United States of America.

There are three basic arguments in favor of the system the framers of the Constitution gave us, with little sense of how it would actually work. The first is easily dismissed. Presidential electors are not more qualified than other citizens to determine who should head the government. They are simply party loyalists who do not deliberate about anything more than where to eat lunch.

A second argument holds less populous states deserve the further electoral weight they gain through the “senatorial bump” giving each state two electors, because their minority status entitles them to additional political protection. But the real interests of small-state voters are never determined by the relative size of the population of their states. If, say, environmental sustainability or abortion or the Second Amendment is your dominant concern, it does not matter whether you live in Wyoming or California, Pennsylvania or Delaware. The size of a state does not affect our real political preferences, even though the Electoral College system imagines that it does.

Third, defenders of the Electoral College also claim that it supports the underlying value of federalism. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. But explaining exactly how it does this remains a mystery. Having a state-based system for electing both houses of Congress should be adequate to that task. Presidential elections have little if anything to do with the subject, even when some candidates claim to be “running against Washington.”

What are the positive arguments in favor of replacing the existing electoral system with a national popular vote? Here, again, there are three main points to make.

Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. But explaining exactly how it does this remains a mystery.

First, and most obviously, such a system would conform to the dominant democratic value that has prevailed in American politics ever since the one-person, one-vote reapportionment rulings of the early 1960s. Our votes would count the same wherever they were cast. No other mode of presidential elections would be fully consistent with our underlying commitment to the equality of all citizens.

Second, a national popular vote would eliminate the “battleground state” phenomenon that has now become the key feature of post-convention campaigning, leaving most Americans alienated from the decisive phase of presidential elections. “Swing” or “battleground” states are mere accidents of geography. They do not matter because they have any special civic characteristics. They simply happen to be states that become competitive because of their demography, and which are readily identifiable as such because of the increasing sophistication of political polling. In a truly national election, parties and candidates would have the incentive to turn out their votes wherever they were, fostering a deeper sense of engagement across the whole population.

Third, a national election might provide a cure for the delegitimation of presidential authority that has afflicted the last three presidencies. It is no secret that the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all suffered, from the outset, from efforts to imply that there was something improper and unworthy or even suspicious in their elections. That same view will doubtless color the 2016 election as well. This perception is reinforced by the red- and blue-state imagery that controls our view of the electoral process. Having an election in which victory went to a candidate carrying a single national constituency might not wholly cure this problem, but it might well work to mitigate it.

By Michael W. McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, director of the Constitutional Law Center and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The Electoral College is not going to be changed, and there are far more urgent and promising topics for reform of our presidential selection system.

It is true that the Electoral College no longer serves its original purposes, and that it creates a grave risk that a candidate not favored by a majority of the people will, from time to time, be elected president. There have been three: John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush. We survived. Not one was a first-rank president, but their selection did not seriously injure the democratic character of our system.

The founders opted for the Electoral College because the two leading alternatives, election by Congress and by popular vote, were thought to have serious defects. Moreover, the electoral college method preserved the two compromises over representation—the three-fifths clause and the big state-small state compromise—and guarded against a fracturing of votes for many candidates, which they thought might occur once George Washington was no longer available as a nationally respected consensus candidate. The three-fifths clause became irrelevant with the end of slavery (thankfully!), and the big state-small state divide no longer animates our politics, if it ever did. The two-party system solves the fractured vote problem more effectively than the Electoral College ever did, and the electors never exercised genuine independence. The Electoral College thus presents democratic risks without serving any of its original purposes.

That is not to say the Electoral College is without its advantages. It gives a slight edge to candidates with broad-based support in many states over those who rack up huge majorities in just a few large states. That probably promotes a more national and less regional vision. It channels presidential politics into a two-party system, which is superior to multiparty systems where fringe factions can exercise too much leverage. It probably reduces the cost of presidential campaigns by confining television advertising to the battleground states (and spares the rest of us the tedium of endless repetitive ads). And it confines vote-counting disputes to just one, or maybe a few, states. Imagine a Florida-style recount in every precinct in America.

Still, the advantages are uncertain and relatively minor. Almost no one would adopt an Electoral College today if we were starting from scratch. But reforming the Electoral College does not rank high among our national problems. Given that a change would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures, it is not going to happen. We should be talking about other things.

The great problems with our presidential selection system today stem from the haphazard way we choose the two major party presidential candidates. This year is the poster child for the need for reform. The two parties have chosen the same year in which to nominate a person whom large numbers of Americans, probably a majority, regard as unfit (though not for the same reason). Generally, we count on the Republican and Democratic parties to nominate not the best people, but candidates who combine a degree of popular support with the experience and temperament to govern. Not this year.

Almost no one would adopt an Electoral College today if we were starting from scratch. But reforming the Electoral College does not rank high among our national problems.

We need to think hard, and quickly, about how to reform three aspects of the presidential nomination process: the debates, the primary elections and the conventions. The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests. The party structures—which, for all their faults, have a vested interest in candidates from the moderate middle who are able to work with Congress and other officials to govern—have been sidelined.

For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill. Interestingly, the congressional caucus system is very close to the system the British used to replace Prime Minister David Cameron. Most Americans would breathe a sigh of relief, I believe, if we had a system capable of choosing the U.S. equivalent of Theresa May instead of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Now is the time for sober and spirited citizens from both parties to devise a new system for 2020.

Trending Stories

• Truth and Lies at Harvard

The university

Advice & Insights

Law/Public Policy/Politics

You May Also Like

An existential moment for democracy.

As American leadership falters, scholars say, autocrats are on the rise.

The View from the ICU

A New Mexico doctor describes the pain and horror of caring for COVID-19 patients.

How to Build a Movement

Social change can seem sudden, as if millions awoke one day to the same realization. But really, scholars say, consensus is constructed through thousands of small acts over generations.

Stanford Alumni Association

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Class Notes

Collections

• Recent Grads
• Mental Health
• After the Farm
• The Stanfords

Get in touch

• Letters to the Editor
• Submit an Obituary
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Code of Conduct

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Non-Discrimination

© Stanford University. Stanford, California 94305.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College

Mara Liasson

Then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi preside over a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 to certify the 2020 Electoral College results after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol earlier that day. Erin Schaff/Pool/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi preside over a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 to certify the 2020 Electoral College results after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol earlier that day.

It's hard to make an intellectual argument in favor of the Electoral College. Most people feel that the person who gets the most votes should become president.

After all, that's how we run every other election in this country, says Jesse Wegman, the author of Let the People Pick the President .

"If anything, representative democracy in the 21st century is about political equality. It's about one person, one vote — everybody's vote counting equally," he said. "You're not going to convince a majority of Americans that that's not how you should do it."

Another way the Electoral College is unfair, says Harvard University political scientist Gautam Mukunda, is that each state gets electors based on its representation in the House and Senate, which means small states get extra votes.

"The fact that in presidential elections people in Wyoming have [nearly four] times the power of people in California is antithetical at the most basic level to what we say we stand for as a democracy," he said.

But Brad Smith, who used to be on the Federal Election Commission, disagrees.

Sure, the election may be decided by just a handful of states — swing states that can shift red or blue. But Smith, a Republican, says the battleground is diverse.

"Those states include some of the states with the heaviest minority populations in the United States, some of the states with the fewest minority populations in the United States," he said. "They include states from every region of the country, and that forces candidates to try to go out and have a platform that will appeal to the huge, diverse sections of America — or at least not grossly turn them off."

And Smith points out that for most of American history, the Electoral College amplified the popular vote, rather than contradicting it.

"Our calculus might change if pretty much every single election, you know, the person who won the most popular votes wasn't winning," he said.

The problem is that twice since 2000, the person with the most votes didn't win. Both times — in 2000 and 2016 — it was the Republican candidate who got fewer votes but ended up in the White House.

And even when that doesn't happen, Wegman sees another problem with the Electoral College system.

"In 2020, despite the 7 million-vote victory that Joe Biden won in the popular vote, people overlook the fact that 45,000 votes switch in the three key battleground states, and you're looking at a second term of Donald Trump," he said. "I mean, the fact that you could have the entire outcome of the election ride on 45,000 votes in three random states is, you know, just a huge, glaring vulnerability for any republic."

"Undue" weight of key states

That vulnerability was on full display on Jan. 6, when Trump and the violent insurrectionists pressed Congress to overturn Biden's Electoral College win. Without the Electoral College, it would have been much harder for them to have asked Congress to overturn the will of 7 million voters. Instead, Trump asked Congress to throw out the electoral votes from just a handful of battleground states.

That means the Electoral College puts a magnifying glass on just a few states that could have tremendous control over presidential elections.

"The Electoral College does mean a small number of states have undue weight in the outcome of our elections and that smaller manipulations can have broad national consequences," said Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanded ballot access.

What she means by manipulations are the efforts by Republicans to change election laws in their favor.

"Vote suppression is one way of doing that — subtracting voters from the electorate who you think won't vote for your preferred candidates," she said. "But this new trend of actually taking over the machinery of elections and giving themselves the power to run things or make decisions or count the votes is another way of doing this."

Republican state lawmakers in places like Georgia and Texas have advanced bills that would give new powers to legislatures to fire election officials and overturn elections.

Democrats don't have the votes in the states or in Congress to stop these laws, so Democrats are trying to build public pressure against them. Republicans say their goal is to fight future election fraud. The 2020 election was declared the most secure ever, but Trump continues to push the lie that the election was stolen from him.

Democrats Increasingly Say American Democracy Is Sliding Toward Minority Rule

Why Possibly Changing The Filibuster Brings Threats Of Political 'Nuclear' War

On the other hand, Republicans don't have to convince the public. They have the votes to pass ballot restrictions, and in some cases they have never held public hearings.

"This is the essence of the minority-rule position, right?" Harvard's Mukunda said. "You don't have to convince the public that the system is fair. You just have to convince them that it's not so unfair they should overthrow the system."

And for Republicans, the system, with all its minoritarian features — the Electoral College, the U.S. Senate , the filibuster , partisan gerrymandering — is, at least for now, working in their favor. But maybe it's not good for democracy when one party doesn't have to try to win the most votes in a presidential election.

A warning from Republicans

Smith says this is something fellow Republicans should consider.

"They keep losing the aggregated popular vote," he said. "Republicans aren't getting enough votes, and that's why they're losing most presidential elections. And, you know, they need to think about, how do we appeal to more people?"

In the runup to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, 12 House Republicans issued an extraordinary statement that warned about the demise of the Electoral College.

"Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years," it stated. The signers then implored their colleagues not to vote to reject the electors from battleground states, as Trump was asking them to do.

"Even looking at it from a narrow partisan lens, this process or that objection was potentially imperiling the Electoral College," said Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, one of the Republicans who signed the letter.

And that would be a bad thing for Republicans, because they depend on the Electoral College. As the statement said: "We will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024."

Correction June 10, 2021

An earlier version of this story included a misspoken quote that said people in Wyoming have 44 times the power of people in California in presidential elections. In fact, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power of people in California.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Electoral College — Electoral College Argumentative Paper

Electoral College Argumentative Paper

• Categories: College Electoral College

About this sample

Words: 516 |

Published: Jun 13, 2024

Words: 516 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1382 words

1 pages / 496 words

1 pages / 432 words

1 pages / 541 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Electoral College

The Electoral College has long been a subject of debate in the United States. It plays a crucial role in the presidential election process, yet its existence and function have faced criticism over the years. In this essay, we [...]

In the midst of the chaotic and often contentious realm of American politics, the Electoral College stands as a unique and sometimes controversial institution that plays a crucial role in the presidential election process. As [...]

The Electoral College has been a topic of debate for many years, with critics arguing that it is an outdated and undemocratic system that should be abolished. On the other hand, proponents of the Electoral College argue that it [...]

The Electoral College has long been a topic of debate in the United States, with critics arguing that it is an outdated and unfair system for electing the President. While supporters of the Electoral College argue that it [...]

The United States employs the electoral college as its method for selecting the president. This system has its strengths and weaknesses notably encouraging presidential hopefuls to engage with a broad array of states rather than [...]

The Electoral College has been a cornerstone of the American electoral system since the inception of the United States. However, as time has passed, the system has faced growing criticism and calls for reform. This argumentative [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

It’s time to abolish the Electoral College

• Download the full report

Darrell M. West Darrell M. West Senior Fellow - Center for Technology Innovation , Douglas Dillon Chair in Governmental Studies

October 15, 2019

• 14 min read

For years when I taught campaigns and elections at Brown University, I defended the Electoral College as an important part of American democracy. I said the founders created the institution to make sure that large states did not dominate small ones in presidential elections, that power between Congress and state legislatures was balanced, and that there would be checks and balances in the constitutional system.

In recent years, though, I have changed my view and concluded it is time to get rid of the Electoral College. In this paper, I explain the history of the Electoral College, why it no longer is a constructive force in American politics, and why it is time to move to the direct popular election of presidents. Several developments have led me to alter my opinion on this institution: income inequality, geographic disparities, and how discrepancies between the popular vote and Electoral College are likely to become more commonplace given economic and geographic inequities. The remainder of this essay outlines why it is crucial to abolish the Electoral College.

The original rationale for the Electoral College

The framers of the Constitution set up the Electoral College for a number of different reasons. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper Number 68, the body was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia between large and small states. Many of the latter worried that states such as Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would dominate the presidency so they devised an institution where each state had Electoral College votes in proportion to the number of its senators and House members. The former advantaged small states since each state had two senators regardless of its size, while the latter aided large states because the number of House members was based on the state’s population.

In addition, there was considerable discussion regarding whether Congress or state legislatures should choose the chief executive. Those wanting a stronger national government tended to favor Congress, while states’ rights adherents preferred state legislatures. In the end, there was a compromise establishing an independent group chosen by the states with the power to choose the president.

But delegates also had an anti-majoritarian concern in mind. At a time when many people were not well-educated, they wanted a body of wise men (women lacked the franchise) who would deliberate over leading contenders and choose the best man for the presidency. They explicitly rejected a popular vote for president because they did not trust voters to make a wise choice.

How it has functioned in practice

In most elections, the Electoral College has operated smoothly. State voters have cast their ballots and the presidential candidate with the most votes in a particular state has received all the Electoral College votes of that state, except for Maine and Nebraska which allocate votes at the congressional district level within their states.

But there have been several contested elections. The 1800 election deadlocked because presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson received the same number of Electoral College votes as his vice presidential candidate Aaron Burr. At that time, the ballot did not distinguish between Electoral College votes for president and vice president. On the 36th ballot, the House chose Jefferson as the new president. Congress later amended the Constitution to prevent that ballot confusion from happening again.

Just over two decades later, Congress had an opportunity to test the newly established 12th Amendment . All four 1824 presidential aspirants belonged to the same party, the Democratic-Republicans, and although each had local and regional popularity, none of them attained the majority of their party’s Electoral College votes. Andrew Jackson came the closest, with 99 Electoral College votes, followed by John Quincy Adams with 84 votes, William Crawford with 41, and Henry Clay with 37.

Because no candidate received the necessary 131 votes to attain the Electoral College majority, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. As dictated by the 12th Amendment , each state delegation cast one vote among the top three candidates. Since Clay no longer was in the running, he made a deal with Adams to become his secretary of state in return for encouraging congressional support for Adams’ candidacy. Even though Jackson had received the largest number of popular votes, he lost the presidency through what he called a “corrupt bargain” between Clay and Adams.

America was still recovering from the Civil War when Republican Rutherford Hayes ran against Democrat Samuel Tilden in the 1876 presidential election. The race was so close that the electoral votes of just four states would determine the presidency. On Election Day, Tilden picked up the popular vote plurality and 184 electoral votes, but fell one vote short of an Electoral College majority. However, Hayes claimed that his party would have won Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina if not for voter intimidation against African American voters; and in Oregon, one of Hayes’ three electoral votes was in dispute.

Instead of allowing the House to decide the presidential winner, as prescribed by the 12th Amendment, Congress passed a new law to create a bipartisan Electoral Commission . Through this commission, five members each from the House, Senate, and Supreme Court would assign the 20 contested electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon to either Hayes or Tilden. Hayes became president when this Electoral Commission ultimately gave the votes of the four contested states to him. The decision would have far-reaching consequences because in return for securing the votes of the Southern states, Hayes agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, thereby paving the way for vigilante violence against African Americans and the denial of their civil rights.

Allegations of election unfairness also clouded the 2000 race. The contest between Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore was extremely close, ultimately resting on the fate of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. Ballot controversies in Palm Beach County complicated vote tabulation. It used the “butterfly ballot” design , which some decried as visually confusing. Additionally, other Florida counties that required voters to punch perforated paper ballots had difficulty discerning the voters’ choices if they did not fully detach the appropriate section of the perforated paper.

Accordingly, on December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in counties that reported statistically significant numbers of undervotes. The Bush campaign immediately filed suit, and in response, the U.S. Supreme Court paused manual recounts to hear oral arguments from candidates. On December 10, in a landmark 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Florida Supreme Court’s recount decision, ruling that a manual recount would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Bush won Florida’s Electoral College votes and thus the presidency even though Gore had won the popular vote by almost half a million votes.

The latest controversy arose when Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost three million ballots yet won the Electoral College by 74 votes. That made him the fifth U.S. chief executive to become president without winning the popular vote. This discrepancy between the Electoral College and the popular vote created considerable contentiousness about the electoral system. It set the Trump presidency off on a rough start and generated a critical tone regarding his administration.

The faithless elector problem

In addition to the problems noted above, the Electoral College suffers from another difficulty known as the “faithless elector” issue in which that body’s electors cast their ballot in opposition to the dictates of their state’s popular vote. Samuel Miles, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, was the first of this genre as for unknown reasons, he cast his vote in 1796 for the Democratic-Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson, even though his own Federalist party candidate John Adams had won Pennsylvania’s popular vote.

Miles turned out to be the first of many. Throughout American history, 157 electors have voted contrary to their state’s chosen winner. Some of these individuals dissented for idiosyncratic reasons, but others did so because they preferred the losing party’s candidate. The precedent set by these people creates uncertainty about how future Electoral College votes could proceed.

This possibility became even more likely after a recent court decision. In the 2016 election, seven electors defected from the dictates of their state’s popular vote. This was the highest number in any modern election. A Colorado lawsuit challenged the legality of state requirements that electors follow the vote of their states, something which is on the books in 29 states plus the District of Columbia. In the Baca v. Hickenlooper case, a federal court ruled that states cannot penalize faithless electors, no matter the intent of the elector or the outcome of the state vote.

Bret Chiafalo and plaintiff Michael Baca were state electors who began the self-named “Hamilton Electors” movement in which they announced their desire to stop Trump from winning the presidency. Deriving their name from Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, they convinced a few members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for other Republican candidates, such as John Kasich or Mitt Romney. When Colorado decided to nullify Baca’s vote, he sued. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Colorado’s decision to remove Baca’s vote was unconstitutional since the founders were explicit about the constitutional rights of electors to vote independently. Based on this legal ruling and in a highly polarized political environment where people have strong feelings about various candidates, it is possible that future faithless electors could tip the presidency one way or another, thereby nullifying the popular vote.

Why the Electoral College is poorly suited for an era of high income inequality and widespread geographic disparities

The problems outlined above illustrate the serious issues facing the Electoral College. Having a president who loses the popular vote undermines electoral legitimacy. Putting an election into the House of Representatives where each state delegation has one vote increases the odds of insider dealings and corrupt decisions. Allegations of balloting irregularities that require an Electoral Commission to decide the votes of contested states do not make the general public feel very confident about the integrity of the process. And faithless electors could render the popular vote moot in particular states.

Yet there is a far more fundamental threat facing the Electoral College. At a time of high income inequality and substantial geographical disparities across states, there is a risk that the Electoral College will systematically overrepresent the views of relatively small numbers of people due to the structure of the Electoral College. As currently constituted, each state has two Electoral College votes regardless of population size, plus additional votes to match its number of House members. That format overrepresents small- and medium-sized states at the expense of large states.

That formula is problematic at a time when a Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program study found that 15 percent of American counties generate 64 percent of America’s gross domestic product. Most of the country’s economic activity is on the East Coast, West Coast, and a few metropolitan areas in between. The prosperous parts of America include about 15 states having 30 senators while the less prosperous areas encapsulate 35 states having 70 senators.

Those numbers demonstrate the fundamental mismatch between economic vitality and political power. Through the Electoral College (and the U.S. Senate), the 35 states with smaller economic activity have disproportionate power to choose presidents and dictate public policy. This institutional relic from two centuries ago likely will fuel continued populism and regular discrepancies between the popular and Electoral College votes. Rather than being a historic aberration, presidents who lose the popular vote could become the norm and thereby usher in an anti-majoritarian era where small numbers of voters in a few states use their institutional clout in “left-behind” states to block legislation desired by large numbers of people.

Support for direct popular election

For years, a majority of Americans have opposed the Electoral College . For example, in 1967, 58 percent favored its abolition, while in 1981, 75 percent of Americans did so. More recent polling, however, has highlighted a dangerous development in public opinion. Americans by and large still want to do away with the Electoral College, but there now is a partisan divide in views, with Republicans favoring it while Democrats oppose it.

For instance, POLITICO and Morning Consult conducted a poll in March 2019 that found that 50 percent of respondents wanted a direct popular vote, 34 percent did not, and 16 percent did not demonstrate a preference. Two months later, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reported polling that 53 percent of Americans wanted a direct popular vote, while 43 percent wanted to keep the status quo. These sentiments undoubtably have been reinforced by the fact that in two of the last five presidential elections, the candidate winning the popular vote lost the Electoral College.

Yet there are clear partisan divisions in these sentiments. In 2000, while the presidential election outcome was still being litigated, a Gallup survey reported that 73 percent of Democratic respondents supported a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct popular voting, but only 46 percent of Republican respondents supported that view. This gap has since widened as after the 2016 election, 81 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans affirmatively answered the same question .

The March POLITICO and Morning Consult poll also found that 72 percent of Democratic respondents and 30 percent of Republican respondents endorsed a direct popular vote. Likewise, the NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll found that 78 percent of Hillary Clinton voters supported a national popular vote, while 74 percent of Trump voters preferred the Electoral College.

Ways to abolish the Electoral College

The U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College but did not spell out how the votes get awarded to presidential candidates. That vagueness has allowed some states such as Maine and Nebraska to reject “winner-take-all” at the state level and instead allocate votes at the congressional district level. However, the Constitution’s lack of specificity also presents the opportunity that states could allocate their Electoral College votes through some other means.

One such mechanism that a number of states already support is an interstate pact that honors the national popular vote. Since 2008, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which is an multi-state agreement to commit electors to vote for candidates who win the nationwide popular vote, even if that candidate loses the popular vote within their state. The NPVIC would become effective only if states ratify it to reach an electoral majority of 270 votes.

Right now, the NPVIC is well short of that goal and would require an additional 74 electoral votes to take effect. It also faces some particular challenges. First, it is unclear how voters would respond if their state electors collectively vote against the popular vote of their state. Second, there are no binding legal repercussions if a state elector decides to defect from the national popular vote. Third, given the Tenth Circuit decision in the Baca v. Hickenlooper case described above, the NPVIC is almost certain to face constitutional challenges should it ever gain enough electoral votes to go into effect.

A more permanent solution would be to amend the Constitution itself. That is a laborious process and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College would require significant consensus—at least two-thirds affirmation from both the House and Senate, and approval from at least 38 out of 50 states. But Congress has nearly reached this threshold in the past. Congress nearly eradicated the Electoral College in 1934, falling just two Senate votes short of passage.

However, the conversation did not end after the unsuccessful vote, legislators have continued to debate ending or reforming the Electoral College since. In 1979, another Senate vote to establish a direct popular vote failed, this time by just three votes. Nonetheless, conversation continued: the 95th Congress proposed a total of 41 relevant amendments in 1977 and 1978, and the 116th Congress has already introduced three amendments to end the Electoral College. In total, over the last two centuries, there have been over 700 proposals to either eradicate or seriously modify the Electoral College. It is time to move ahead with abolishing the Electoral College before its clear failures undermine public confidence in American democracy, distort the popular will, and create a genuine constitutional crisis.

Related Content

Richard Lempert

November 29, 2016

Elaine Kamarck, John Hudak

December 9, 2020

Russell Wheeler

October 21, 2020

Related Books

Mara Karlin

January 19, 2018

Tom Wheeler

July 1, 2024

Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly, Zia Qureshi

August 1, 2024

Campaigns & Elections

Elaine Kamarck

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Research & Reports

The Electoral College Explained

A national popular vote would help ensure that every vote counts equally, making American democracy more representative.

• Electoral College Reform

In the United States, the presidency is decided not by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College — an outdated and convoluted system that sometimes yields results contrary to the choice of the majority of American voters. On five occasions, including in two of the last six elections, candidates have won the Electoral College, and thus the presidency, despite losing the nationwide popular vote. 

The Electoral College has racist origins — when established, it applied the three-fifths clause, which gave a long-term electoral advantage to slave states in the South — and continues to dilute the political power of voters of color. It incentivizes presidential campaigns to focus on a relatively small number of “swing states.” Together, these dynamics have spurred debate about the system’s democratic legitimacy.

To make the United States a more representative democracy, reformers are pushing for the presidency to be decided instead by the national popular vote, which would help ensure that every voter counts equally.

What is the Electoral College and how does it work?

The Electoral College is a group of intermediaries designated by the Constitution to select the president and vice president of the United States. Each of the 50 states is allocated presidential electors  equal to the number of its representatives and senators . The ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 allowed citizens in the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections as well; they have consistently had three electors.

In total, the Electoral College comprises  538 members . A presidential candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes cast to win — at least 270 if all 538 electors vote.

The Constitution grants state legislatures the power to decide how to appoint their electors. Initially, a number of state legislatures directly  selected their electors , but during the 19th century they transitioned to the popular vote, which is now used by  all 50 states . In other words, each awards its electoral votes to the presidential candidate chosen by the state’s voters.

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia use a winner-take-all system, awarding all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the state. Maine and Nebraska award one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts and their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner. Under this system, those two states sometimes split their electoral votes among candidates.

In the months leading up to the general election, the political parties in each state typically nominate their own slates of would-be electors. The state’s popular vote determines which party’s slates will be made electors. Members of the Electoral College  meet and vote in their respective states  on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December after Election Day. Then, on January 6, a joint session of Congress meets at the Capitol to count the electoral votes and declare the outcome of the election, paving the way for the presidential inauguration on January 20.

How was the Electoral College established?

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 settled on the Electoral College as a compromise between delegates who thought Congress should select the president and others who favored a direct nationwide popular vote. Instead, state legislatures were entrusted with appointing electors.

Article II  of the Constitution, which established the executive branch of the federal government, outlined the framers’ plan for the electing the president and vice president. Under this plan, each elector cast two votes for president; the candidate who received the most votes became the president, with the second-place finisher becoming vice president — which led to administrations in which political opponents served in those roles. The process was overhauled in 1804 with the ratification of the  12th Amendment , which required electors to cast votes separately for president and vice president. 

How did slavery shape the Electoral College?

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the northern states and southern states had  roughly equal populations . However, nonvoting enslaved people made up about one-third of the southern states’ population. As a result, delegates from the South objected to a direct popular vote in presidential elections, which would have given their states less electoral representation.

The debate contributed to the convention’s eventual decision to establish the Electoral College, which applied the  three-fifths compromise  that had already been devised for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Three out of five enslaved people were counted as part of a state’s total population, though they were nonetheless prohibited from voting.

Wilfred U. Codrington III, an assistant professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and a Brennan Center fellow,  writes  that the South’s electoral advantage contributed to an “almost uninterrupted trend” of presidential election wins by southern slaveholders and their northern sympathizers throughout the first half of the 19th century. After the Civil War, in 1876, a contested Electoral College outcome was settled by a compromise in which the House awarded Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency with the understanding that he would withdraw military forces from the Southern states. This led to the end of Reconstruction and paved the way for racial segregation under Jim Crow laws.

Today, Codrington argues, the Electoral College continues to dilute the political power of Black voters: “Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states’ electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. … Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged.”

What are faithless electors?  

Ever since the 19th century reforms, states have expected their electors to honor the will of the voters. In other words, electors are now pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. However, the Constitution does not require them to do so, which allows for scenarios in which “faithless electors” have voted against the popular vote winner in their states. As of 2016, there have been  90 faithless electoral votes  cast out of 23,507 in total across all presidential elections. The 2016 election saw a record-breaking  seven faithless electors , including three who voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was not a presidential candidate at the time.  

Currently, 33 states and the District of Columbia  require their presidential electors  to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Only 5 states, however, impose a penalty on faithless electors, and only 14 states provide for faithless electors to be removed or for their votes to be canceled. In July 2020, the Supreme Court  unanimously upheld  existing state laws that punish or remove faithless electors.

What happens if no candidate wins a majority of Electoral College votes?

If no ticket wins a majority of Electoral College votes, the presidential election is  sent to the House of Representatives  for a runoff. Unlike typical House practice, however, each state only gets one vote, decided by the party that controls the state’s House delegation. Meanwhile, the vice-presidential race is decided in the Senate, where each member has one vote. This scenario  has not transpired since 1836 , when the Senate was tasked with selecting the vice president after no candidate received a majority of electoral votes.

Are Electoral College votes distributed equally between states?

Each state is allocated a number of electoral votes based on the total size of its congressional delegation. This benefits smaller states, which have at least three electoral votes — including two electoral votes tied to their two Senate seats, which are guaranteed even if they have a small population and thus a small House delegation. Based on population trends, those disparities will likely increase as the most populous states are expected to account for an even greater share of the U.S. population in the decades ahead. 

What did the 2020 election reveal about the Electoral College?

In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential race, Donald Trump and his allies fueled an effort to overturn the results of the election, spreading repeated lies about widespread voter fraud. This included attempts by a number of state legislatures to nullify some of their states’ votes, which often targeted jurisdictions with large numbers of Black voters. Additionally, during the certification process for the election, some members of Congress also objected to the Electoral College results, attempting to throw out electors from certain states. While these efforts ultimately failed, they revealed yet another vulnerability of the election system that stems from the Electoral College.

The  Electoral Count Reform Act , enacted in 2023, addresses these problems. Among other things, it clarifies which state officials have the power to appoint electors, and it bars any changes to that process after Election Day, preventing state legislatures from setting aside results they do not like. The new law also raises the threshold for consideration of objections to electoral votes. It is now one-fifth of each chamber instead of one senator and one representative.  Click here for more on the changes made by the Electoral Count Reform Act.

What are ways to reform the Electoral College to make presidential elections more democratic?

Abolishing the Electoral College outright would require a constitutional amendment. As a workaround, scholars and activist groups have rallied behind the  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact  (NPV), an effort that started after the 2000 election. Under it, participating states would  commit to awarding their electoral votes  to the winner of the national popular vote.

In other words, the NPV would formally retain the Electoral College but render it moot, ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote also wins the presidency. If enacted, the NPV would incentivize presidential candidates to expand their campaign efforts nationwide, rather than focus only on a small number of swing states.

For the NPV to take effect, it must first be adopted by states that control at least 270 electoral votes. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact the compact. As of 2019, a total of 19 states and Washington, DC, which collectively account for 196 electoral votes, have joined.

The public has consistently supported a nationwide popular vote. A 2020 poll by Pew Research Center, for example, found that  58 percent of adults  prefer a system in which the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins the presidency.

Related Resources

How Electoral Votes Are Counted for the Presidential Election

The Electoral Count Reform Act addresses vulnerabilities exposed by the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

NATO’s Article 5 Collective Defense Obligations, Explained

Here’s how a conflict in Europe would implicate U.S. defense obligations.

The Supreme Court ‘Shadow Docket’

The conservative justices are increasingly using a secretive process to issue consequential decisions.

Preclearance Under the Voting Rights Act

For decades, the law blocked racially discriminatory election rules and voting districts — and it could do so again, if Congress acts.

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense

Excerpt from an original publication: Kimberling, William C. (1992). Essays in Elections The Electoral College . Washington: National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, Federal Election Commission.

The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System

Arguments against the electoral college.

• the possibility of electing a minority president
• the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
• the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
• its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Opponents of the Electoral College are disturbed by the possibility of electing a minority president (one without the absolute majority of popular votes). Nor is this concern entirely unfounded since there are three ways in which that could happen.

One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the country were so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained the necessary majority. This occurred, as noted above, in 1824 and was unsuccessfully attempted in 1948 and again in 1968. Should that happen today, there are two possible resolutions: either one candidate could throw his electoral votes to the support of another (before the meeting of the Electors) or else, absent an absolute majority in the Electoral College, the U.S. House of Representatives would select the president in accordance with the 12 th Amendment. Either way, though, the person taking office would not have obtained the absolute majority of the popular vote. Yet it is unclear how a direct election of the president could resolve such a deep national conflict without introducing a presidential run-off election -- a procedure which would add substantially to the time, cost, and effort already devoted to selecting a president and which might well deepen the political divisions while trying to resolve them.

A second way in which a minority president could take office is if, as in 1888, one candidate's popular support were heavily concentrated in a few States while the other candidate maintained a slim popular lead in enough States to win the needed majority of the Electoral College. While the country has occasionally come close to this sort of outcome, the question here is whether the distribution of a candidate's popular support should be taken into account alongside the relative size of it. This issue was mentioned above and is discussed at greater length below.

A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no one received over 50% of the national popular total. Far from being unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both 1912 and 1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, and Nixon in 1968. The only remarkable thing about those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared. Nor would a direct election have changed those outcomes without a run-off requiring over 50% of the popular vote (an idea which not even proponents of a direct election seem to advocate).

Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors . A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party's candidate for president but nevertheless votes of another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as 1988 when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around. Faithless Electors have never changed the outcome of an election, though, simply because most often their purpose is to make a statement rather than make a difference. That is to say, when the electoral vote outcome is so obviously going to be for one candidate or the other, an occasional Elector casts a vote for some personal favorite knowing full well that it will not make a difference in the result. Still, if the prospect of a faithless Elector is so fearsome as to warrant a Constitutional amendment, then it is possible to solve the problem without abolishing the Electoral College merely by eliminating the individual Electors in favor of a purely mathematical process (since the individual Electors are no longer essential to its operation).

Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout. Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation (and they often cite the South here) so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State. While this argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct other elections (for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State legislators, and a host of local officials) in which these same incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even greater force. It is hard to imagine what counter-incentive would be created by eliminating the Electoral College.

Finally, some opponents of the Electoral College point out, quite correctly, its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will in at least two respects.

First, the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to over-represent people in rural States. This is because the number of Electors for each State is determined by the number of members it has in the House (which more or less reflects the State's population size) plus the number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of the State's population). The result is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdiction of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other States listed.

A second way in which the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular will stems primarily from the winner-take-all mechanism whereby the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes in the State wins all the Electoral votes of that State. One effect of this mechanism is to make it extremely difficult for third party or independent candidates ever to make much of a showing in the Electoral College. If, for example, a third party or independent candidate were to win the support of even as many as 25% of the voters nationwide, he might still end up with no Electoral College votes at all unless he won a plurality of votes in at least one State. And even if he managed to win a few States, his support elsewhere would not be reflected. By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two party system, discourages third party or independent candidates, and thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate.

In response to these arguments, proponents of the Electoral College point out that is was never intended to reflect the national popular will. As for the first issue, that the Electoral College over-represents rural populations, proponents respond that the United State Senate - with two seats per State regardless of its population - over-represents rural populations far more dramatically. But since there have been no serious proposals to abolish the United States Senate on these grounds, why should such an argument be used to abolish the lesser case of the Electoral College? Because the presidency represents the whole country? But so, as an institution, does the United States Senate.

As for the second issue of the Electoral College's role in reinforcing a two party system, proponents, as we shall see, find this to be a positive virtue.

Arguments for the Electoral College

• contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
• enhances the status of minority interests,
• contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
• maintains a federal system of government and representation.

Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country be requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, without such a mechanism, they point out, president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire. This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small price. And the price is that in very close popular elections, it is possible that the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the one elected president - depending (as in 1888) on whether his popularity is concentrated in a few States or whether it is more evenly distributed across the States. Yet this is less of a problem than it seems since, as a practical matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so small that either candidate could govern effectively. Proponents thus believe that the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern. Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups . This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those State with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth. It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.

Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate - and in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party. In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government. A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election. The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be frayed and unstable political system characterized by a multitude of political parties and by more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next. The Electoral College system, in contrast, encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of coherent alternatives. Such an organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the political stability of the nation. Finally, its proponents argue quite correctly that the Electoral College maintains a federal system of government and representation. Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. In the United States, for example, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency (with the number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States. Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College? The fact is, they argue, that the original design of our federal system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers. State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual State populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and State governments which the Founding Fathers intended and which is reflected in the Electoral college. To do so would fundamentally alter the nature of our government and might well bring about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and are not necessarily shared by the Federal Election Commission or any division thereof or the Jackson County Board of Election Commissioners.

A Selected Bibliography On the Electoral College Highly Recommended

Berns, Walter (ed.) After the People Vote : Steps in Choosing the President . Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1983. Bickel, Alexander M. Reform and Continuity . New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (2 nd ed). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1985.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (Ed.) History of Presidential Elections 1789-1968. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971.

Other Sources

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Proposals for Revision of the Electoral College System . Washington: 1969.

Best, Judith. The Case Against the Direct Election of the President . Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1975. Longley, Lawrence D. The Politics of Electoral College Reform . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Pierce, Neal R. and Longley, Lawrence D. The People's President: The Electoral College in American History and the Direct-Vote Alternative . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Sayre, Wallace Stanley, Voting for President . Washington: Brookings Institution, c1970. Zeidenstein, Harvey G. Direct Election of the President . Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1973.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

The History of the Electoral College Debate

By: Sarah Pruitt

Updated: October 23, 2020 | Original: December 13, 2016

At the time of the Constitutional Convention , the majority of the new nation’s citizens lived in cities like Philadelphia or Boston, while the Southern states were more rural and sparsely populated. African American enslaved people made up a full 40 percent of the South’s population, and Southern delegates wanted them to be counted along with white citizens when it came to calculating how many representatives their states would receive in Congress. Northerners, on the other hand, argued that slaves were property, and didn’t require representation.

This ugly debate was resolved with the so-called “three-fifths compromise,” by which each Black person would count as three-fifths of a person when determining congressional representation for each state by population. As each state’s number of electors in the Electoral College was equal to its number of representatives in Congress, this compromise also affected how the country elected its executive branch.

READ MORE: What Is the Electoral College and Why Was It Created?

The framers put a great deal of thought into establishing the Electoral College, but were still uncertain exactly how it would work in practice. The first serious problem emerged in the election of 1800, when Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate for president received the same number of electoral votes as his chosen running mate, Aaron Burr. 

The election went to the House of Representatives, dominated by the rival Federalist Party; some of the party’s members saw Burr as less objectionable than Jefferson, and wanted him to become president. After a chaotic process , including no fewer than 36 votes, Jefferson was elected president and Burr V.P. The whole debacle led to the adoption of the 12th Amendment, which mandated that electors specify their choices for president and vice president.

Despite that crucial improvement to the Electoral System, there was still a major issue looming: What if the winner of the popular vote, the candidate chosen by the majority of the nation’s citizens, failed to win the Electoral College, and didn’t become president? This happened for the first time in 1824, to Andrew Jackson , who had risen from the backwoods of the Carolinas, with little formal education, to become a successful slaveholding lawyer in Tennessee and the celebrated hero of the War of 1812.

READ MORE: 5 Presidents Who Lost the Popular Vote But Won the Election

All four leading candidates in the 1824 election were from the same party, the Democratic-Republicans. Though Jackson got the most electoral votes (99) and held a slight lead (38,149 votes) in the popular vote, no candidate received a majority in the Electoral College, and the decision again fell to the House of Representatives, who would decide between the top three finishers, Jackson, John Quincy Adams (who received 84 electoral votes) and Secretary of State William Crawford.

Speaker of the House Henry Clay , who had come in fourth in the presidential race and hated Jackson, suddenly had tremendous influence over the election results. The Kentuckian forged an alliance between electors in Ohio and New England (including states that had voted decisively for Jackson) in order to hand the White House to Adams, who later appointed Clay as his secretary of state. 

The so-called “corrupt bargain” haunted Adams’ presidency and allowed Jackson to effectively market himself as the common man’s champion against an elitist, corrupt system. “Old Hickory” won the White House in 1828, and in his first annual message to Congress he recommended eliminating the Electoral College.

Since then, four other U.S. presidential elections (1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016) have ended with a candidate winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. This apparent disconnect between the democratic ideal of the people playing a direct role in government and the reality of the system in practice has fueled the continuing debate over the Electoral College, and led many people over the years to echo Jackson’s call to abolish it.

READ MORE: How Are Electoral College Electors Chosen?

Critics of the Electoral College system call it a relic of the 18th century—when only three-fifths of a black person was counted, and black men, women and white men who didn’t own property couldn’t vote—and argue that it doesn’t fairly represent our nation as it exists today. In recent elections, national campaigns have increasingly focused on a small handful of “battleground” states whose electoral votes are up for grabs, effectively depriving millions of citizens (as many as four out of every five Americans , according to some analysts) of their voice in the electoral process.

Another potential weakness in the Electoral College system is the existence of so-called “faithless electors,” who for whatever reason choose to vote against their state’s chosen candidate. There have been 157 such faithless electors over the years, starting way back in 1796, when a Pennsylvania elector changed his vote from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson , for reasons that remain unclear. Today, many states require electors to take a formal pledge to uphold their state’s choice, but 21 states have no such requirement.

On the other hand, supporters of the Electoral College see it as an integral part of our federal union, and a necessary way to give the states, as well as the people, a role in choosing the leadership of the government. Now, as in 1787, it’s seen as a critical way of preventing large urban centers from dominating the political process at the expense of rural areas. 

READ MORE: How the Great Compromise Affects Politics Today

In any case, eliminating the Electoral College would not be an easy process. Congress, or a national constitutional convention, would have to propose an amendment, which would then have to be ratified by either three-quarters of state legislatures (currently 38) or by state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.

Those who argue in favor of the current system can point to the fact that in more than 200 years, the electoral and popular votes have split just five times (nearly 10 percent of presidential elections), and faithless electors have never changed the result of an election. Given that statistic, perhaps many would agree with Alexander Hamilton , who in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers  wrote of the new Electoral College system that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Electoral College Pros and Cons

• U.S. Political System
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Legal System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.S., Texas A&M University

The Electoral College system , long a source of controversy, came under especially heavy criticism after the 2016 presidential election when Republican Donald Trump lost the nationwide popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes but won the Electoral College—and thus the presidency—by 74 electoral votes .

• Gives the smaller states an equal voice.
• Prevents disputed outcomes ensuring a peaceful transition of power
• Reduces the costs of national presidential campaigns.
• Can disregard the will of the majority.
• Gives too few states too much electoral power.
• Reduces voter participation by creating a “my vote doesn’t matter” feeling.

By its very nature, the Electoral College system is confusing . When you vote for a presidential candidate, you are actually voting for a group of electors from your state who have all “pledged” to vote for your candidate. Each state is allowed one elector for each of its Representatives and Senators in Congress. There are currently 538 electors, and to be elected, a candidate must get the votes of at least 270 electors.

The Obsolescence Debate

The Electoral College system was established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. The Founding Fathers chose it as a compromise between allowing Congress to choose the president and having the president elected directly by the popular vote of the people. The Founders believed that most common citizens of the day were poorly educated and uninformed on political issues. Consequently, they decided that using the “proxy” votes of the well-informed electors would lessen the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the voices of the minority are drowned out by those of the masses. Additionally, the Founders reasoned that the system would prevent states with larger populations from having an unequal influence on the election.

Critics, however, argue that Founder’s reasoning is no longer relevant as today’s voters are better-educated and have virtually unlimited access to information and to the candidates’ stances on the issues. In addition, while the Founders considered the electors as being “free from any sinister bias” in 1788, electors today are selected by the political parties and are usually “pledged” to vote for the party’s candidate regardless of their own beliefs.

Today, opinions on the future of the Electoral College range from protecting it as the basis of American democracy to abolishing it completely as an ineffective and obsolete system that may not accurately reflect the will of the people. What are some of the main advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College?

Advantages of the Electoral College 

• Promotes fair regional representation: The Electoral College gives the small states an equal voice. If the president was elected by the popular vote alone, candidates would mold their platforms to cater to the more populous states. Candidates would have no desire to consider, for example, the needs of farmers in Iowa or commercial fishermen in Maine.
• Provides a clean-cut outcome: Thanks to the Electoral College, presidential elections usually come to a clear and undisputed end. There is no need for wildly expensive nationwide vote recounts. If a state has significant voting irregularities, that state alone can do a recount. In addition, the fact that a candidate must gain the support of voters in several different geographic regions promotes the national cohesion needed to ensure a peaceful transfer of power.
• Makes campaigns less costly: Candidates rarely spend much time—or money—campaigning in states that traditionally vote for their party’s candidates. For example, Democrats rarely campaign in liberal-leaning California, just as Republicans tend to skip the more conservative Texas. Abolishing the Electoral College could make America’s many campaign financing problems even worse.   

Disadvantages of the Electoral College  

• Can override the popular vote: In five presidential elections so far—1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016—a candidate lost the nationwide popular vote but was elected president by winning the Electoral College vote. This potential to override the “will of the majority” is often cited as the main reason to abolish the Electoral College.
• Gives the swing states too much power: The needs and issues of voters in the 14 swing states —those that have historically voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates—get a higher level of consideration than voters in other states. The candidates rarely visit the predictable non-swing states, like Texas or California. Voters in the non-swing states will see fewer campaign ads and be polled for their opinions less often voters in the swing states. As a result, the swing states, which may not necessarily represent the entire nation, hold too much electoral power.
• Makes people feel their vote doesn’t matter: Under the Electoral College system, while it counts, not every vote “matters.” For example, a Democrat’s vote in liberal-leaning California has far less effect on the election’s final outcome that it would in one of the less predictable swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. The resulting lack of interest in non-swing states contributes to America’s traditionally low voter turnout rate .

The Bottom Line

Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment , a lengthy and often unsuccessful process. However, there are proposals to “reform” the Electoral College without abolishing it. One such movement, the National Popular Vote plan would ensure that the winner of the popular vote would also win at least enough Electoral College votes to be elected president. Another movement is attempting to convince states to split their electoral vote based on the percentage of the state’s popular vote for each candidate. Eliminating the winner-take-all requirement of the Electoral College at the state level would lessen the tendency for the swing states to dominate the electoral process.

The Popular Vote Plan Alternative

As an alternative to the long and unlikely method amending the Constitution, critics of the Electoral College are now perusing the National Popular Vote plan designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in inaugurated president.

Based on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution granting the states the exclusive power to control how their electoral votes are awarded, the National Popular Vote plan requires the legislature of each participating state to enact a bill agreeing that the state will award all of its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that specific state.

The National Popular Vote would go into effect when states controlling 270—a simple majority—of the total 538 electoral votes. As of July 2020, a National Popular Vote bill has been signed into law in 16 states controlling a total of 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states, 8 medium-sized states, 3 big states (California, Illinois, and New York), and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote plan will take effect when enacted by states controlling an additional 74 electoral votes.  

Sources and Further Reference

• “From Bullets to Ballots: The Election of 1800 and the First Peaceful Transfer of Political Power.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org , https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/zvesper/chapter1/.
• Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers: No. 68 (The Mode of Electing the President).” congress.gov , Mar. 14, 1788, https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68.
• Meko, Tim. “How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states.” Washington Post (Nov. 11, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/.
• How the US Electoral College System Works
• Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
• Electoral Votes by State in 2020
• The National Popular Vote Plan
• What Happens If the Presidential Election Is a Tie
• Representative Democracy: Definition, Pros, and Cons
• Direct Democracy: Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons
• What Is a Bicameral Legislature and Why Does the U.S. Have One?
• What Is Incrementalism in Government? Definition and Examples
• What Was the US Second Party System? History and Significance
• What Are Low Information Voters?
• About the Speaker of the House of Representatives
• About the Legislative Branch of U.S. Government
• Apportionment and the US Census
• The Important Role of US Third Parties
• Congressional Oversight and the US Government

U.S. Constitution.net

Electoral College Explained

Historical development.

The Electoral College, as outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution , was established as a compromise between election of the President by Congress and election by popular vote. The founders aimed to form a buffer between population and the selection of a President, which originally involved electors chosen by the state legislatures.

The system underwent significant changes with the 12th Amendment , ratified in 1804, following a highly problematic election in 1800 where Thomas Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, tied in electoral votes, throwing the election to the House of Representatives. This amendment mandated separate Electoral College votes for President and Vice President to avoid similar confusion in the future.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, tweaks to the Electoral College arose predominantly through changes in how states chose their electors. Initially, state legislatures selected electors, but by the mid-19th century, all states had shifted to popular elections. Some states originally allowed their legislatures to represent the voter's intent, but this has largely fallen out of practice except in rare instances of legislative interposition.

By the time of the contentious 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden, wherein neither candidate secured a majority of electoral votes, a special Electoral Commission was established. This incident illustrated profound flaws in the Electoral College system and led to calls for reform, seen later during pivotal elections.

The 1960s introduced the rise of calls for a direct popular vote after multiple attempts for change emerged throughout the 20th century. The most significant might be during the 1968 presidential election, catalyzed by shifts in public opinion that leaned heavily towards abolishment of the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote. However, the legislative fruition of these calls remained stagnant, mainly due to political and regional partisanship.

The skewed weight per vote due to demographic distribution across states has remained a pivotal issue. States like Wyoming having more electoral influence per capita compared to densely populated California reiterates disparities that frequently ignite discussions on the relevance and fairness of this system in modern elections.

Faithless electors have also occasionally influenced debates around the Electoral College's efficacy. In principle, electors are expected to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in their respective states, but instances of electors casting votes by either personal discretion or party influence have surfaced sporadically, leading to calls for tighter laws on elector commitments.

Current discussions also pivot on the effects of the Winner-Take-All method employed by most states, influencing strategic campaign placements, where candidates focus primarily on battleground states while often overlooking ones perceived as staunchly loyal to a particular party. This tactical disregard potentially undermines political engagement in "secure" states.

Alternative proposals to the existing format include the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, advanced as a way to ensure the Popular Vote winner becomes the President without amending the Constitution. Participating states agree to cast their electoral votes for the National Popular Vote winner as soon as enough states join to reach a 270-electoral vote majority.

The historical evolution and contemporary criticism of the Electoral College highlight fundamental concerns on its alignment with democratic principles, feeding an ongoing debate on whether it continues to serve its founding functions or whether a new method of presidential election is overdue for a contemporary America.

Mechanics of the Electoral College

On Election Day, voters across the United States cast their ballots not directly for presidential candidates but for electors who pledge to vote on their behalf in the Electoral College. These electors, whose numbers are tied to the sum of each state's Senators and Representatives in Congress, ultimately select the President and Vice President.

Following the state elections, chosen electors convene in their respective state capitals in December to officially cast their electoral votes. This process is a formality, as electors usually pledge to support their party's candidate if that candidate won the state's popular vote. Interestingly, while the U.S. Constitution dictates the existence of electors, it does not specify the exact proceedings for this voting, which has resulted in varied practices.

Each elector casts one vote for President and one for Vice President, which are recorded on separate ballots. This method of secret balloting aims to maintain elector discretion although 'faithless elector' occurrences are rare and have never impacted the end result of a presidential race.

After the voting by electors, the next crucial step is the counting and certification of electoral votes by Congress. This happens on January 6, following the election year, during a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Vice President, serving as the President of the Senate, oversees this significant event.

During this session, the certificates of electoral votes from each state are opened and presented in alphabetical order. Members of both chambers of Congress have the opportunity to object to the electoral votes. If both a Senator and a Representative challenge a state's results, the two chambers separately debate this issue. However, both houses of Congress must unanimously agree to reject an electoral vote—something that is highly rare.

Assuming no controversies demanding resolutions arise—or once resolved—the candidate who accumulates at least 270 electoral votes is officially declared the winner by the Vice President. This formal announcement ratifies the selection of the President-elect and Vice President-elect, with Inauguration Day set for January 20.

Controversies and Criticisms

The core controversies of the Electoral College often spark heated debate among scholars, policymakers, and the public alike. Central to these disagreements is the winner-takes-all allocation used by almost all states. Critics argue that this method often leaves the 'losing' voters in a state effectively unrepresented in the Electoral College. For example, a candidate can win a state by a small margin in the popular vote but garner all the state's electoral votes, potentially sidelining half the voting population. This can lead to a significant disparity between the national popular vote and the Electoral College results, raising questions about the democratic integrity of the election process.

Indeed, the divergence between the Electoral College and the popular vote has led to instances where the presidential candidate who lost the popular vote still claimed victory through the Electoral College. Examples in modern history include the 2000 and 2016 elections, in which George W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively, lost the popular vote but won the presidency due to Electoral College mathematics. 1,2 Such situations have fueled arguments that the Electoral College may thwart the will of the majority of voters, leading to a government that lacks full democratic legitimacy by modern standards.

Adding another layer to these concerns are 'faithless electors.' These are electors who, contrary to expectations, do not vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote. Although rare and yet to decisively impact the outcome of a presidential election, the very existence of faithless electors adds unpredictability to an already contentious system. It poses pivotal questions about electoral autonomy versus elector obligations, further complicating the debates around the Electoral College's role in democratic governance.

Additionally, concerns exist about the equal value of votes across different states. Because electoral votes are not strictly proportional to population, voters in less populated states wield comparatively more influence than those in densely populated states. This discrepancy can feel antithetical to principles of equal representation prevalent in democratic ideologies, where ideally each vote carries equal weight in influencing an election's outcome.

Therefore, despite the ingenious design and historical roots of the Electoral College within the U.S. Constitution, it raises significant concerns that threaten its current suitability. As such, calls for reform or replacement simmer within political discourse, propelled by these intricacies and contradictions that challenge its utility in ensuring a president who truly represents the majority's preference.

Proposed Reforms

One prominent reform initiative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) , which posits a significant transformation in how electoral votes are allocated without necessitating a Constitutional amendment. Rather than abolishing the Electoral College, the NPVIC allows it to remain but works within its framework. States participating in the compact agree to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote, regardless of the state-specific results. This Compact will take effect only when the total electoral votes of the member states exceed the crucial figure of 270—enough to secure the election of the president. As of now, states representing 196 electoral votes have joined the compact, indicating movement toward but not yet reaching this critical threshold. 3

Another approach widely discussed involves amending the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College entirely, replacing it with a direct national popular vote. This method requires both a two-thirds majority vote in each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures—which demonstrates a formidable challenge, given the political diversity and varying interests across states. This level of consensus is complex to achieve as demonstrated by history and reflects the very brand of federalist balance the founding fathers aimed to secure.

Both ideas, while robust in advocating for enhanced democracy, must confront enduring queries related to campaign dynamics, minority interests, and regional diversity. Critics of shifting to a straightforward national popular vote argue that such a shift may direct candidates to focus primarily on large urban centers where the densest populations reside, potentially neglecting rural or less densely-populated areas. Proponents reply that a national campaign strategy under the popular vote would compel presidential contenders to appeal to a broader cross-section of Americans, thereby promoting more inclusivity in policy discourse and campaigning.

As these proposals make clear, debate around the Electoral College's reform or abolition inherently addresses broader questions about the nature of American democracy and the fundamental principles governing it. The contemplation of these reforms—be it through constitutional amendments or innovative compacts—reveals an ongoing commitment to perfecting a union that remains true to both its historical roots and its evolving democratic ideals. This ongoing dialectic underscores that while the Founding Fathers laid forth a visionary template, it is incumbent upon subsequent generations to recalibrate its mechanisms to better reflect the values and demographics of a modern nation.

Impact on Political Campaigns

Political campaigns in the United States are fundamentally shaped by the Electoral College, explaining why presidential candidates concentrate their efforts on a select group of battleground or swing states rather than engaging equally across all states. This focus primarily results from the winner-takes-all method of allocating electoral votes, which is used by all but two states, Maine and Nebraska. Here, the candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote in a state typically secures all of that state's electoral votes.

This system compels strategists to invest a disproportionate amount of time, money, and resources into states that could go either way—Democratic or Republican. States like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan often see a surge of campaign activity, including advertising spend, rallies, and targeted policies aimed at swaying an undecided electorate. Conversely, "safe" states with a history of swinging strongly Republican or Democrat receive considerably less attention beyond fundraising activities.

This tactical distribution of campaign resources has wider implications for political engagement across the country. It can lead to voter apathy in states considered safe, where the electorate may feel their vote holds less sway in tipping the balance of national results. By the same token, it can escalate election fervor in swing states, potentially giving a small pocket of voters an oversized influence on the outcome of the election.

Moreover, this strategy has spurred discussions about equity and representation in the democratic process. Critics argue that focusing only on swing states might lead to policy promises that cater to interests represented within these areas at the expense of broader national interests. This not only skews the democratic process but also places immense power in the hands of a few, thus making the national outcome dependent on regional issues and sentiments that might not mirror the overall will of the American populace.

Additionally, the Electoral College shapes campaign narratives in ways that deepen regional divides rather than fostering a cohesive national identity. Candidates may embrace rhetoric or adopt stances that resonate with key demographics within pivotal swing states, potentially inflaming partisan divides or overlooking urgent national issues that do not play as effectively in those areas.

In light of these issues, some critics argue for reforms that would lead presidential candidates to campaign for votes nationwide, respecting each vote equally irrespective of state identity. Such changes promise a campaign landscape that encourages candidates to build more inclusive platforms that address the concerns of a broader electorate.

Thus, while the Founding Fathers envisioned the Electoral College as a check against the unwielded voting population and as a balance between big and small states, its current manifestation continues to stir significant debate over its influence on American political and electoral strategies. Reflecting on these complex dynamics underscores the ongoing need to examine and possibly recalibrate election systems to ensure they accord with democratic principles of equality, representation, and fairness. These principles remain pivotal in making each citizen feel that their vote is not only counted but truly counts in shaping the governance of their country.

• Neale TH. The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections. Congressional Research Service; 2020.
• Edwards GC III. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. 3rd ed. Yale University Press; 2019.
• Koza J, Fadem B, Grueskin M, et al. Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote. National Popular Vote Press; 2013.

• U.S. Elections , U.S. Government

Electoral College Debate: To Keep or Abolish?

Introduction

Imagine you’re voting for class president. You would probably expect that the student with the highest number of votes would become president, and you’d likely be correct: that is how most elections work. U.S. presidential elections, however, are different. Instead of electing the president through a direct popular vote, like in your class election, Americans choose their chief executive through a system called the Electoral College. 

Explanation

The Electoral College was established during the Constitutional Convention as a compromise between delegates who wanted the president to be elected by a direct popular vote and those who wanted the president to be selected by Congress.  Under the Electoral College system, Americans technically vote for electors, not candidates. The electors then cast their ballots, called electoral votes, based on whichever candidate won the popular vote in their state. The winning candidate must receive the majority of the electoral votes, or at least 270 out of the possible 538. 

Electoral College Debate

Today, many people believe the Electoral College should be abolished and replaced with a national popular vote. Opponents of the system argue that the Electoral College is outdated and causes candidates to ignore voters from the vast majority of states. They also believe it is unacceptable that a president could win the Electoral College but not the popular vote. Other people support the Electoral College because it forces candidates to cultivate a geographically diverse voter base and could strengthen the presidential mandate. Additionally, they argue that the Electoral College would be complicated and time-consuming to replace. 

Arguments Against the Electoral College

Many opponents of the Electoral College argue that the reasons it was created are no longer relevant. For example, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention established the Electoral College in part because they did not think ordinary Americans would have access to adequate information about the candidates. They worried citizens would default to voting for candidates from their home state. Mass communication, the Internet, and modern travel mean this is no longer a concern: Americans can now easily educate themselves about the race. 

The Electoral College was also established as a concession to Southern delegates, who pushed for a system that would allow them to exploit the ⅗ Compromise and use their enslaved populations to gain more representation. Slavery was outlawed over a century ago, making this no longer relevant. 

Opponents of the Electoral College also argue that under the current system, candidates have no incentive to listen to voters in solidly Republican or Democratic states. If a state always votes Democrat, a Republican candidate has no reason to campaign there because she knows she will not get any electoral votes from that state. If a state always votes Republican, the candidate can be confident she will get that state’s electoral votes without much campaigning. That candidate’s time is better spent working for electoral votes from swing states, which could go either way. This can also affect voter turnout; if voters in solidly red or blue states don’t think their vote matters, they may be less likely to engage in the political process. 

Candidates focus almost all their effort on swing states: in 2012, for example, ⅔ of campaign events in the general election were held in four swing states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa. This disproportionate focus on swing states has a tangible effect on governance. For example, swing states receive 7% more federal grants than other states and two times as many presidential disaster declarations.

Additionally, many opponents disagree with a system in which an individual could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote. This has happened five times. They argue that this system undermines the will of the people and weakens a president’s mandate to rule. 

Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College

On the other hand, many people do still believe the Electoral College is the best system for electing the president. Proponents of the system argue that it forces candidates to appeal to the nation as a whole. They contend that under the Electoral College, candidates cannot ignore the concerns of rural voters and rely only on highly-populated urban areas for all their support. Candidates must actively work to expand their platforms to appeal to a geographically diverse voter base. 

Proponents also argue that the Electoral College creates a stronger mandate for the presidency by reaffirming the president’s win. For example, in 2012, President Obama won only 51.3% of the popular vote but 61.7% of the electoral vote. A popular vote could weaken the presidential mandate because the winning candidate may acquire only a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes. 

Additionally, supporters of the Electoral College believe it is an effective system that would be unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming to replace. They argue that since the Electoral College almost always echoes the result of the popular vote, it is not worth the time and effort to pass the constitutional amendment that would be necessary to change the system completely. They also express concerns about the logistics of a national popular vote. Nationwide recounts in the case of a close election, for instance, would be a massive undertaking. 

The Debate Today 

Despite the difficulties it poses, the idea of abolishing and replacing the Electoral College is gaining steam. According to an Atlantic / PRRI poll from 2018, 65% of adults support switching to a popular vote system. Additionally, several of the Democratic candidates in the 2020 primary expressed support for abolishing the current system.

However, the chances of entirely changing the system in the near future are slim. Doing so would necessitate a constitutional amendment, which requires support from ⅔ of the House of Representatives, ⅔ of the Senate, and ¾ of the states. This widespread, bipartisan support is unlikely to materialize in the near future.

Recently, several states have adopted a plan that would effectively eliminate the Electoral College without an amendment. Sixteen states plus D.C. have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, through which they have pledged to commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of who wins in their state. Currently, states in the pact claim a total of 196 electoral votes. The pact will go into effect once states with 74 more electoral votes enact it. At this point, at least 270 electors will have pledged to support the candidate who wins the popular vote, making that candidate president. This method does not technically get rid of the Electoral College; it just modifies how states assign their electoral votes.

In the coming years and elections, this debate will continue to evolve. As it does, it will likely have significant effects on how our voting system, government, and democracy function.

Think Further

• Do you think the Electoral College should be abolished? Why or why not?
• Under a popular vote, the winning candidate may win the plurality of the vote, but not the majority. How could that weaken a president?
• During the Constitutional Convention, Virginia delegate George Mason said “The extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates.” What did he mean? Is this argument still relevant today?

Teacher Resources

Sign up for our educators newsletter to learn about new content!

Educators Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up

Get updated about new videos!

Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up

Infographic

This gave students an opportunity to watch a video to identify key factors in our judicial system, then even followed up with a brief research to demonstrate how this case, which is seemingly non-impactful on the contemporary student, connect to them in a meaningful way

This is a great product. I have used it over and over again. It is well laid out and suits the needs of my students. I really appreciate all the time put into making this product and thank you for sharing.

Appreciate this resource; adding it to my collection for use in AP US Government.

I thoroughly enjoyed this lesson plan and so do my students. It is always nice when I don't have to write my own lesson plan

Sign up to receive our monthly newsletter!

• Academy 4SC
• Educators 4SC
• Leaders 4SC
• Students 4SC
• Research 4SC

Accountability

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

History and operation

Arguments for and against the electoral college.

• U.S. election results
• U.S. electoral votes

• Should election day be made a national holiday?
• Should the United States use the Electoral College in presidential elections?

Electoral College

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• History, Art, and Archives - United States House of Representatives - Electoral College Fast Facts
• Social Studies for Kids - The Electoral College
• Bill of Rights Institute - Electoral College
• National Archives - What is the Electoral College?
• electoral college - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Electoral College - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

Electoral College , the system by which the president and vice president of the United States are chosen. It was devised by the framers of the United States Constitution to provide a method of election that was feasible , desirable, and consistent with a republican form of government. For the results of U.S. presidential elections, see the table .

During most of the Constitutional Convention , presidential selection was vested in the legislature. The Electoral College was proposed near the end of the convention by the Committee on Unfinished Parts, chaired by David Brearley of New Jersey , to provide a system that would select the most qualified president and vice president. Historians have suggested a variety of reasons for the adoption of the Electoral College, including concerns about the separation of powers and the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, the balance between small and large states, slavery , and the perceived dangers of direct democracy . One supporter of the Electoral College, Alexander Hamilton , argued that while it might not be perfect, it was “at least excellent.”

Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution stipulated that states could select electors in any manner they desired and in a number equal to their congressional representation (senators plus representatives). (The Twenty-Third Amendment , adopted in 1961, provided Electoral College representation for Washington, D.C. ) The electors would then meet and vote for two people, at least one of whom could not be an inhabitant of their state. Under the original plan, the person receiving the largest number of votes, provided it was a majority of the number of electors, would be elected president, and the person with the second largest number of votes would become vice president. If no one received a majority, the presidency of the United States would be decided by the House of Representatives , voting by states and choosing from among the top five candidates in the electoral vote. A tie for vice president would be broken by the Senate . Despite the Convention’s rejection of a direct popular vote as unwise and unworkable, the initial public reaction to the Electoral College system was favorable. The major issue of concern regarding the presidency during the debate over ratification of the Constitution was not the method of selection but the president’s unlimited eligibility for reelection.

The development of national political parties toward the end of the 18th century provided the new system with its first major challenge. Informal congressional caucuses , organized along party lines, selected presidential nominees. Electors, chosen by state legislatures mostly on the basis of partisan inclination, were not expected to exercise independent judgment when voting. So strong were partisan loyalties in 1800 that all the Democratic-Republican electors voted for their party’s candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr . Since the framers had not anticipated party-line voting and there was no mechanism for indicating a separate choice for president and vice president, the tie had to be broken by the Federalist -controlled House of Representatives. The election of Jefferson after 36 ballots led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, which specified separate ballots for president and vice president and reduced the number of candidates from which the House could choose from five to three.

The development of political parties coincided with the expansion of popular choice. By 1836 all states selected their electors by direct popular vote except South Carolina , which did so only after the American Civil War . In choosing electors, most states adopted a general-ticket system in which slates of partisan electors were selected on the basis of a statewide vote. Thus, the winner of a state’s popular vote would win its entire electoral vote. Only Maine and Nebraska have chosen to deviate from this method, instead allocating electoral votes to the victor in each House district and a two-electoral-vote bonus to the statewide winner. The winner-take-all system generally favored major parties over minor parties, large states over small states, and cohesive voting groups concentrated in large states over those that were more diffusely dispersed across the country.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Electoral College system is the possibility that the winner might not be the candidate with the most popular votes. Four presidents— Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000, and Donald Trump in 2016—were elected with fewer popular votes than their opponents, and Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives after winning a plurality of the popular and electoral vote in 1824. In 18 elections between 1824 and 2000, presidents were elected without popular majorities—including Abraham Lincoln , who won election in 1860 with under 40 percent of the national vote. During much of the 20th century, however, the effect of the general ticket system was to exaggerate the popular vote, not reverse it. For example, in 1980 Ronald Reagan won just over 50 percent of the popular vote and 91 percent of the electoral vote; in 1988 George Bush received 53 percent of the popular vote and 79 percent of the electoral vote; and in 1992 and 1996 William J. Clinton won 43 and 49 percent of the popular vote, respectively, and 69 and 70 percent of the electoral vote. Third-party candidates with broad national support are generally penalized in the Electoral College—as was Ross Perot , who won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and no electoral votes—though candidates with geographically concentrated support—such as Dixiecrat candidate Strom Thurmond , who won 39 electoral votes in 1948 with just over 2 percent of the national vote—are occasionally able to win electoral votes.

The divergence between popular and electoral votes indicates some of the principal advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College system. Many who favor the system maintain that it provides presidents with a special federative majority and a broad national mandate for governing, unifying the two major parties across the country and requiring broad geographic support to win the presidency. In addition, they argue that the Electoral College protects the interests of small states and sparsely populated areas, which they claim would be ignored if the president was directly elected. Opponents, however, argue that the potential for an undemocratic outcome—in which the winner of the popular vote loses the electoral vote—the bias against third parties and independent candidates, the disincentive for voter turnout in states where one of the parties is clearly dominant, and the possibility of a “faithless” elector who votes for a candidate other than the one to whom he is pledged make the Electoral College outmoded and undesirable. Many opponents advocate eliminating the Electoral College altogether and replacing it with a direct popular vote. Their position has been buttressed by public opinion polls, which regularly show that Americans prefer a popular vote to the Electoral College system. Other possible reforms include a district plan, similar to those used in Maine and Nebraska, which would allocate electoral votes by legislative district rather than at the statewide level; and a proportional plan, which would assign electoral votes on the basis of the percentage of popular votes a candidate received. Supporters of the Electoral College contend that its longevity has proven its merit and that previous attempts to reform the system have been unsuccessful.

In 2000 George W. Bush ’s narrow 271–266 Electoral College victory over Al Gore , who won the nationwide popular vote by more than 500,000 votes, prompted renewed calls for the abolition of the Electoral College, as did Donald Trump ’s 304–227 Electoral College victory in 2016 over Hillary Clinton , who won the nationwide popular vote by nearly three million votes. Doing so, however, would require adopting a constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Because many smaller states fear that eliminating the Electoral College would reduce their electoral influence, adoption of such an amendment is considered difficult and unlikely.

Some advocates of reform, recognizing the enormous constitutional hurdle, instead focused their efforts on passing a so-called National Popular Vote (NPV) bill through state legislatures. State legislatures that enacted the NPV would agree that their state’s electoral votes would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote—even if that person was not the winner of the state’s popular vote; language in the bill stipulated that it would not take effect until the NPV was passed by states possessing enough electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidential election. By 2010 several states—including Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey—had adopted the NPV, and it had been passed in at least one legislative house in more than a dozen other states.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Electoral College vs. popular vote in the United States

Graphic shows scenario in which a presidential candidate can win the popular vote but lose the election.;

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — WHY IS IT THAT ONE CANDIDATE CAN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE BUT ANOTHER WINS THE ELECTORAL VOTE AND THUS THE PRESIDENCY?

That’s how the framers of the Constitution set it up.

This unique system of electing presidents is a big reason why Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016. Four candidates in history have won the popular vote only to be denied the presidency by the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was devised at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was a compromise between those who wanted direct popular elections for president and those who preferred to have Congress decide. At a time of little national identity and competition among the states, there were concerns that people would favor their regional candidates and that big states with denser populations would dominate the vote.

The Electoral College has 538 members, with the number allocated to each state based on how many representatives it has in the House plus its two senators. (The District of Columbia gets three, despite the fact that the home to Congress has no vote in Congress.)

To be elected president, the winner must get at least half plus one — or 270 electoral votes.

This hybrid system means that more weight is given to a single vote in a small state than the vote of someone in a large state, leading to outcomes at times that have been at odds with the popular vote.

In fact, part of a presidential candidate’s campaign strategy is drawing a map of states the candidate can and must win to gather 270 electoral votes.

In 2016, for instance, Democrat Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump in the presidential election, after racking up more lopsided wins in big states like New York and California. But she lost the presidency due to Trump’s winning margin in the Electoral College, which came after he pulled out narrow victories in less populated Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College — an unlikely move because of how difficult it is to pass and ratify constitutional changes. But there’s a separate movement that calls for a compact of states to allocate all their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of how those individual states opted in an election. That still faces an uphill climb, though.

This new series from the AP is dedicated to answering commonly asked questions from our audience about the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Get answers to questions on

The Electoral College Debate Essay

Explanation, introduction.

The Electoral College is a system established in the United States Constitution to determine the outcome of the presidential election. Under this system, each state is allocated a certain number of electors based on its representation in Congress. The electors then vote on behalf of the citizens to select the President and Vice President. However, the Electoral College has been the subject of much debate and criticism, with some arguing for its abolition in favor of a popular vote system. In this essay, we will explore the arguments and different perspectives surrounding the Electoral College, providing a comprehensive analysis of this ongoing debate.

Historical Background

To understand the debate surrounding the Electoral College, we must first examine its origins. The framers of the Constitution implemented this system as a compromise between electing the President through Congress and a direct popular vote. They sought to balance the representation of both highly populated and less populated states, as well as protect against potential tyranny of the majority. At the time, communication and transportation were limited, making a nationwide popular vote impractical.

Functioning of the Electoral College

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, with each state receiving a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress (Senators + Representatives). The District of Columbia is also allocated electors. The electors are generally chosen by the political parties within each state and pledge to support the candidate who wins the popular vote in their respective state. The candidate who receives a majority of 270 electoral votes becomes the President.

Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College

1. balancing power between states.

Proponents of the Electoral College argue that it ensures a fair distribution of power between states. They contend that a popular vote system would overly prioritize highly populated states, leading to neglect or marginalization of less populated regions. The Electoral College, they argue, provides a platform for smaller states to have a say in the election and prevents dominance by a few heavily populated states. The system is designed to reflect the federal nature of the United States, where each state has its own distinct interests and concerns.

For example, let's consider the state of Wyoming, which has a small population compared to California. In a popular vote system, California's large population would likely determine the outcome of the election, leaving Wyoming's interests underrepresented. The Electoral College allocates electors based on each state's representation in Congress, giving smaller states a voice in the presidential election.

2. Stability and Avoidance of Recounts

Another argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it provides stability and avoids the need for nationwide recounts. In a popular vote system, a close election result could lead to extensive recounts across the entire country, causing delays and potential complications. The Electoral College consolidates election results at the state level, making it easier to determine the outcome.

For instance, if a candidate wins a state by a small margin, the result would be clear and final. However, in a popular vote system, a narrow margin nationwide or in multiple states may necessitate recounts, creating uncertainty and delays in determining the overall winner.

3. Promotes Two-Party System

Proponents of the Electoral College argue that it supports a two-party system, as it tends to discourage the emergence of third-party candidates. In this system, the two major parties have a strong incentive to appeal to a broad base of voters to secure the majority of electoral votes.

For example, a third-party candidate who receives a significant portion of the popular vote might not win any electoral votes. This outcome discourages the growth of third parties as they struggle to gain enough support to win in any particular state.

4. Protect Minority Interests

The Electoral College is also seen as a mechanism to protect the interests of minority populations. It ensures that candidates must consider the concerns and needs of various regions and demographics in order to win the election.

For instance, with the Electoral College, candidates must appeal to diverse populations across the country to secure the necessary electoral votes. This requirement helps prevent concentration of power solely in areas with majority populations and encourages candidates to address the issues and concerns of minority communities.

Arguments Against the Electoral College

While there are valid arguments in favor of the Electoral College, there are also strong criticisms against it. Let's explore the main arguments against the system:

1. Disproportionate Influence

Critics argue that the Electoral College gives disproportionate influence to certain states and their populations. Due to the winner-takes-all approach in most states, candidates tend to focus their campaign efforts on a limited number of swing states, effectively ignoring others.

For example, candidates might ignore small states like Wyoming or Rhode Island, or large states like California or Texas, assuming the outcome is already predetermined. This can leave many citizens feeling neglected and their votes undervalued.

2. Popular Vote Inequality

Another argument against the Electoral College is that it can result in a mismatch between the popular vote and the outcome of the election. This discrepancy is due to the winner-takes-all approach employed by most states where all electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who wins the popular vote, regardless of the margin of victory.

For instance, if a candidate wins a state by a slim margin, they receive all the electoral votes from that state. This winner-takes-all system can lead to a situation where the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide may not win the electoral vote and, consequently, the presidency. This has happened in several elections throughout history and has sparked controversy and calls to reform or abolish the Electoral College.

3. Disenfranchisement of Voters

Critics argue that the winner-takes-all system of the Electoral College can discourage voter participation, especially in states where one party dominates. They contend that voters of the minority party in these states may feel their votes don't matter since all of the state's electoral votes will go to the majority candidate.

For example, in a predominantly Republican or Democratic state, voters who affiliate with the opposing party may feel discouraged from participating in the election, as they believe their vote will have no impact on the final outcome.

4. Unfair Influence of Swing States

One of the main criticisms against the Electoral College is that it gives disproportionate influence to swing states, often at the expense of other states. Swing states are those that have a history of voting for different parties and are more likely to determine the outcome of the election.

For instance, during presidential campaigns, candidates tend to focus their resources and attention on battleground states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, while largely ignoring states that are historically loyal to one party. This practice can lead to policies and issues specific to swing states receiving more attention than those affecting the country as a whole.

Possible Reforms and Alternatives

Given the criticisms and debates surrounding the Electoral College, various proposals for reforming or replacing the system have emerged. Let's explore some of these potential alternatives:

1. Direct Popular Vote

One proposed alternative to the Electoral College is a direct popular vote system, where the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is declared the winner. This approach would eliminate the role of the electors and directly reflect the will of the people.

Advocates for this change argue that it would ensure a closer alignment between the popular vote and the election outcome, eliminating the risk of the popular vote winner losing the presidency. It would also incentivize candidates to campaign in every state and prioritize the concerns of all citizens.

However, critics argue that a direct popular vote system could lead to an overemphasis on highly populated urban areas, potentially alienating rural or less populated regions. They assert that such a system might neglect the representation of smaller states and encourage candidates to focus their attention solely on densely populated areas.

2. Proportional Allocation of Electors

Another proposed reform is the proportional allocation of electoral votes within each state. Under this system, instead of the winner-takes-all approach, electoral votes would be distributed in proportion to the popular vote percentage each candidate receives.

Advocates for this reform argue that it would eliminate the discrepancies between the popular vote and the outcome of the election. It could also encourage candidates to campaign vigorously in states they would have otherwise ignored.

However, critics contend that proportional allocation could still lead to mismatches between the popular vote and the electoral vote, as candidates might target only specific regions within states to maximize their electoral gains. They argue that this approach could create complexity and potentially undermine the simplicity and predictability of the current system.

The Electoral College debate is a complex and contentious topic in American politics. It raises fundamental questions about representation, fairness, and the nature of democracy. Supporters argue that the Electoral College preserves the balance of power between states, provides stability, and protects minority interests. Critics, on the other hand, highlight the system's potential for disenfranchisement, disproportionate influence, and the mismatch between the popular vote and the outcome.

As the debate continues, it is important to weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College. It remains a crucial part of the American democratic process, but potential reforms and alternatives should be explored to address the concerns and criticisms that have been raised. Ultimately, the decision on whether to maintain, reform, or abolish the Electoral College is one that will shape the future of American elections and the voices and aspirations of its citizens.

Questions related to The Electoral College Debate Essay

Final answer:.

This response provides a template for writing a letter to a state senator arguing in favor of keeping the Electoral College for electing the President of the United States. It outlines several benefits of the Electoral College system, including fair representation for all states, stability, and fostering national unity.

Explanation:

Dear Senator,

I am writing to express my support for keeping the Electoral College in the process of electing the President of the United States. The Electoral College provides several important benefits that outweigh the arguments for changing to a popular vote system.

Firstly, the Electoral College ensures that all states have a voice in the election. By giving each state a certain number of electoral votes, based on their population, it prevents highly populated states from dominating the election. This system ensures that candidates must consider the interests and concerns of a diverse range of states, rather than focusing solely on large urban areas.

Secondly, the Electoral College promotes stability and prevents close, contested elections. The winner-takes-all system in most states creates a decisive outcome, reducing the chances of recounts or legal battles over the result. In addition, the Electoral College requires a candidate to have broad support across multiple states, rather than simply winning the popular vote by a small margin.

Lastly, the Electoral College fosters a sense of national unity and compromise. It encourages candidates to build broad coalitions and appeal to a diverse range of voters, rather than solely focusing on the most populous areas. This system helps to ensure that the president represents the interests of the entire nation, not just the preferences of a narrow majority.

In conclusion, the Electoral College has proven to be an effective and balanced method for electing the president. It ensures fair representation for all states, promotes stability, and fosters national unity. I urge you to support the continuation of the Electoral College in the process of selecting the president of the United States.

Since ratification in 1789, the Constitution has been amended only twenty-seven times. The first ten amendments were added in 1791.

The Federalist Papers, in particular, argued in favor of ratification and sought to convince people that the new government would not become tyrannical. Finally, in June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve the Constitution, making it the law of the land. The debate over ratification was waged in the newspapers, through pamphlets, and on the floor of the state conventions, where the vote was often close. Those who favored the strong national government provided for in the Constitution called themselves the Federalists; their opponents became the Antifederalists.

What the author is claiming based on what is said here is that there are issues with the way that the president of the country is elected .

What is the way that the president of the United States is elected?

The office of the number one person in the United states is elected through the use of the electoral college in the nation. The electoral college is made up of a number of citizens that have the final say on who gets to be the president .

The author as well as many others have seen this system as an outdated and rather ineffective system to the ways that the president is chosen.

They prefer the situation where the number 1 is picked totally by the citizens .

Read more on United States presidential election here: https://brainly.com/question/1328636

American imperialism consists of guidelines aimed at extending the political, economic, media and artistic influence of the United States over zones beyond its boundaries.

What is the historical context of the Spanish-American War?

The war developed in the Cuban struggle for independence from Spain, which started in February 1895. Spain's brutally repressive efforts to halt the rebellion were graphically displayed for the U.S. public by several spectacular newspapers engaging in fair journalism, and American compassion for the Cuban revolutionaries rose.

Accomplished Albert Beveridge support American imperialism?

Beveridge is understood as one of the most prominent American imperialists . He advocated the annexation of the Philippines and, along with Republican chief Henry Cabot Lodge, campaigned for the building of a new navy.

The conclusion of the writer's argument about American imperialism is the strongest. American imperialism allowed to bring new cultures toward current educational standards. Civilizations were able to learn global languages, allowing for easier communication between cultures. Being capable to read and write allowed people to begin creating new goals for their homes.

To learn more about American imperialism, refer

https://brainly.com/question/884452

Representative Democracy method is used by most states to determine which candidate wins the state's Electoral College votes.

Based on the Census, electoral votes are distributed among the States. Every State is given a certain number of votes , two for each of its senators in the U.S. Senate and another number of votes proportional to the number of its Congressional districts, based on the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation.

The District of Columbia is given three electors and is regarded like a State for Electoral College purposes under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution . Each State chooses how to choose its electors, including the District of Columbia for the purposes of this debate.

Currently, all States determine which political party selects the appointees based on the results of the popular vote in the general election.

Read more about Electoral College :

https://brainly.com/question/12896928

Title: The Debate Over Compulsory Voting in the United States

Introduction:

The right to vote is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance, ensuring citizens' participation in shaping their government. While the United States draws inspiration from ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome, the issue of compulsory voting has sparked debate. This essay will explore the arguments for and against enacting compulsory voting laws in the United States, considering the benefits and potential drawbacks. Ultimately, it will be argued that voting should remain optional, as it preserves individual freedom and encourages active civic engagement.

I. Preserving Individual Freedom

A. Protecting the right to individual choice

- Compulsory voting violates the principle of individual freedom by forcing citizens to participate in the political process against their will.

- Freedom of choice extends to abstaining from voting as a form of political expression.

B. Respecting the right to dissent

- Mandatory voting undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system by pressuring citizens to vote, even if they have no genuine interest or knowledge about the candidates or issues.

- A voluntary voting system allows citizens to express their dissent or disapproval by abstaining from voting.

II. Encouraging Informed and Engaged Voting

A. Quality over quantity

- Compulsory voting may increase voter turnout, but it does not guarantee an informed and engaged electorate.

- A voluntary system encourages voters to be informed about candidates, policies, and the consequences of their choices, leading to more meaningful participation.

B. Encouraging civic education and political awareness

- Instead of relying on compulsory voting, efforts should be focused on improving civic education and raising political awareness.

- By promoting civic education, citizens will be better equipped to make informed decisions, leading to a more engaged and responsible electorate.

III. Ensuring Effectiveness and Practicality

A. Managing logistical challenges

- Compulsory voting poses logistical challenges, including the need for voter registration and the enforcement of penalties for non-compliance.

- The costs and resources required to implement and enforce compulsory voting laws may outweigh the potential benefits.

B. Promoting voluntary civic participation

- Emphasizing the importance of voluntary civic participation fosters a sense of responsibility and ownership in citizens.

- Citizens who choose to vote voluntarily are more likely to be actively engaged in the political process and exercise their civic duties beyond voting.

Counterclaim:

Some proponents argue that compulsory voting would lead to a more representative democracy and reduce the influence of special interest groups. They claim that mandatory voting promotes equal participation and reduces socioeconomic disparities in voter turnout.

While these arguments have merit, they fail to address the potential negative consequences of compulsory voting, such as infringing upon individual freedom and diluting the impact of informed and engaged voters.

Conclusion:

While the principles of democracy find inspiration in ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome, the United States should maintain its voluntary voting system. Compulsory voting would undermine individual freedom, potentially lead to uninformed and unengaged voters, and create practical challenges. Instead, the focus should be on promoting civic education, raising political awareness, and encouraging voluntary civic participation. By preserving the option to vote, the United States upholds the values of individual liberty and active citizenship, ensuring that citizens have the freedom to exercise their political rights as they deem appropriate.

The results of the Electoral College can differ from the popular vote, although this is rare in U.S. history. Examples include the 2000, 1876, and 1888 elections.

The Electoral College is a system used in the United States to choose the president. The results of the Electoral College can differ from the popular vote due to the winner-takes-all rule in most states. This means that even if a candidate wins a state by a small margin, they receive all of that state's electoral votes. This has led to instances where a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, such as in the 2000 election when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush.

It is important to note that the results of the Electoral College differing from the popular vote is relatively rare. In fact, it has only happened a few times in U.S. history. Other examples include the 1876 election where Rutherford B. Hayes won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden, and the 1888 election where Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland.

In summary, while it is possible for the results of the Electoral College to differ from the popular vote, it is not a common occurrence. It has only happened a few times throughout U.S. history, and it is a topic of debate regarding the fairness and effectiveness of the Electoral College system.

Learn more about Differences between the results of the Electoral College and the popular vote here:

https://brainly.com/question/1443898

52 Electoral College Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best electoral college topic ideas & essay examples, 📃 good research topics about electoral college, ⭐ interesting topics to write about electoral college.

• Electoral College’s Advantages and Disadvantages Made up of 538 electors, the Electoral College votes decide the president and vice president of the United States of America.
• Editorial on Electoral College Improvement As such, it is common to find cases where the person who is defeated by the majority votes wins the election because they have the right number of the Electoral College.
• US Constitution Changes Regarding Electoral College The first lens is the political lens, which is the understanding of the power relationship between those who possess the power and those who lack it.
• Electoral College and Congregational Reapportionment In the US, for instance, the electoral votes in each state are not distributed based on the popular votes cast to each candidate but the winner is taken to be the one with the popular […]
• Electoral College: Prognosis for 2016 Clinton seems to be unlikely to win the 2016 elections, as the effects of the Democratic Party’s rule have been beyond deplorable in Obama’s office years.
• Electoral College Versus Direct Election Due to the problems the Electoral College system created during the 2000 presidential elections, people are clamoring to abolish or reform the said system.
• History of Electoral College According to this principle, the candidate who wins the majority of votes in a state takes the rest of the votes as well.
• Problems Facing the Electoral College in Presidential Elections The Electoral College is an electoral system in the United States that was established through the Constitution of the United States; this was subsequently amended through the establishment of the 12th Amendment of the year […]
• Abolishing the Electoral College: A Pathway to Democracy
• The Electoral College and Its Relation to the 2000 Presidential Election
• Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College and the Modern Election
• Abolishing the Electoral College: Pros and Cons
• The Electoral College and Proposed Reform Policies
• The Necessity of Reforming the Electoral College for America
• The Strengths and Weakness of the Electoral College
• The Electoral College and the American Idea of Democracy
• Applying the Electoral College to the U.S. And Elsewhere
• Checks and Balances: Federalism and Electoral College
• Civics: The Electoral College and Primaries
• The Electoral College and the Influence of California
• Constitutional Amendment and Abolish the Electoral College
• Doubts and Concerns Floats on the Accuracy of Electoral College
• Electoral College and Why It Should Be Changed
• The Electoral College and the Problems That Come With It
• Federalism and the Electoral College: General Ticket Method for Selecting Presidential Electors
• The Electoral College Should Not Be Abolished
• The Electoral College and Voter Participation: Evidence on Two Hypotheses
• Many Argue the Flaws in the Electoral College of the United States
• Electoral College System and the Alleged Advantages
• Modern Election Arguments Against the Electoral College
• Electoral College Voting System for Choosing the President
• Nominations, Elections, and Campaigns: The Idea of Electoral College
• The Electoral College Issues From a Political Correctness Perspective
• Electoral Versus Popular Vote: Criticisms of the Electoral College
• Outdated Political System: Get Rid of the Electoral College
• The Electoral College: Dilemma of the United States
• POS Structure and Function of the Electoral College
• Predicting Electoral College Victory Probabilities From State Probability Data
• Sophisticated and Myopic? Citizen Preferences for Electoral College Reform
• The Electoral College and Its Impact on Voter Turnout
• Suffrage for the People: The Electoral College and Possible Alternatives
• The Electoral College: How It Has Shaped the Modern Presidential Election
• Swing States, the Winner-Take-All Electoral College, and Fiscal Federalism
• Advantages and Problems With the Electoral College System in America
• The American Voting System: Overview of Electoral College
• The Conflicts Concerning the Electoral College in America
• The Controversies Surrounding the Electoral College
• The Electoral College: Diversification and the Election Process
• The Corruption, Revolt, and Criticism Surrounding the American Electoral College System
• The Electoral College and How Popular Vote Doesn’t Matter
• The Electoral College, Battleground States, and Rule-Utilitarian Voting
• Corruption Ideas
• Freedom of Speech Ideas
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Political Science Research Topics
• Social Democracy Essay Titles
• Political Parties Research Ideas
• Tea Party Ideas
• Women’s Rights Titles
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 27). 52 Electoral College Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/electoral-college-essay-topics/

"52 Electoral College Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/electoral-college-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '52 Electoral College Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "52 Electoral College Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/electoral-college-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "52 Electoral College Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/electoral-college-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "52 Electoral College Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/electoral-college-essay-topics/.

Electoral College

Electoral College History

How did we get the electoral college.

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

The ratification of the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the States’ use of the popular vote to determine who will be appointed as electors have each substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the eligible voters, but none has been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College process?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. For example, third party candidates with regional appeal, such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South, but neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, although they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. In 2016, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, qualified for the ballot in all 50 States and the District of Columbia but also failed to win any electoral votes. 

Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 elections).

Where can I find the names and voting records of presidential electors for all previous Presidential elections back to 1789?

OFR is not aware of a centralized, comprehensive source.