Full Answer Section

1. Winner-Take-All: In 48 out of 50 states (and D.C.), the candidate who wins the popular vote within that state receives all of that state’s electoral votes. This is known as the “winner-take-all” system.
2. Maine and Nebraska Exception: Maine and Nebraska are the only states that do not use a pure winner-take-all system. They allocate two electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote and one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts.
3. Winning the Presidency: A candidate needs a majority of the electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538) to win the presidency.
4. Electors’ Vote: While citizens cast ballots for president, they are technically voting for a slate of electors pledged to a particular candidate. These electors then meet in their respective states in mid-December to cast their official votes.
5. Congressional Count: In early January, a joint session of Congress convenes to count the electoral votes and declare the winner.
6. Contingent Election: If no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses the President (with each state delegation getting one vote), and the Senate chooses the Vice President. This is a rare occurrence.

My Thoughts on the Electoral College

The Electoral College presents a fascinating tension between democratic ideals and federalist principles. My perspective is that while it served a specific purpose at the time of its creation, its continued existence in its current form raises significant questions about its utility and fairness in a modern democracy.

Does it serve any useful function?

Supporters argue that it does, primarily by:

• Protecting Small States: Proponents claim it prevents presidential candidates from focusing solely on densely populated urban areas and forces them to build broader coalitions by campaigning across states with smaller populations. This ensures that the concerns of less populous states are not ignored.
• Promoting National Unity/Broad Appeal: By requiring candidates to win electoral votes from different states, it supposedly encourages them to appeal to a wider range of regional and diverse interests across the country, rather than just concentrating on a few population centers.
• Preventing “Tyranny of the Majority”: Some argue it was designed to safeguard against a situation where a bare popular majority could impose its will on a geographically concentrated minority, ensuring a more distributed national consensus.
• Encouraging a Two-Party System: The winner-take-all nature of most states tends to favor a two-party system, which some see as promoting political stability.
• Providing a Clear Winner: In most cases, it delivers a clear winner, potentially avoiding prolonged national recounts.

Does it need to be scrapped?

Detractors argue strongly that it should be scrapped, citing several key issues:

• Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote Discrepancy: The most significant criticism is that a candidate can win the national popular vote but lose the presidency, as has happened in 2000 and 2016. This undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” and can lead to feelings of disenfranchisement.
• Focus on Swing States: Because of the winner-take-all system, presidential campaigns heavily concentrate their resources and attention on a handful of “swing states” (e.g., Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin). This means voters in “safe” states (those reliably red or blue) often feel their votes don’t matter as much, potentially leading to lower voter turnout in those areas.
• Unequal Weight of Votes: Due to the minimum of three electoral votes per state (two senators + one representative), voters in smaller states have disproportionately more electoral power per capita than voters in larger states. For example, a voter in Wyoming has significantly more electoral influence than a voter in California.
• Historical Roots in Slavery: Critics point out that the Electoral College was partly a compromise to appease Southern states during the founding of the U.S. The Three-Fifths Compromise allowed enslaved people (who couldn’t vote) to be counted as 3/5 of a person for representation, giving Southern states more electoral power. While the direct link to slavery is no longer relevant, the structural imbalance remains.
• “Faithless Electors”: While rare, electors are not always legally bound to vote according to their state’s popular vote. These “faithless electors” can vote for a candidate who didn’t win their state, potentially altering the outcome.

Supporters and Detractors: What They Say

Supporters (Arguments for retention):

• Trent England (Save Our States Project): Argues that the Electoral College is essential for maintaining a federal system, preventing the domination of a few large metropolitan areas, and ensuring that presidential candidates have to appeal to a broad range of interests across different states, including rural and less populous ones. He emphasizes that it forces candidates to build national coalitions.
• Conservative Think Tanks (e.g., Heritage Foundation): Often highlight the Founders’ intent, emphasizing the balance between population and state sovereignty. They suggest it prevents a few urban centers from deciding elections, ensuring a more geographically diverse mandate.
• Generally: Focus on the system’s historical stability, its role in promoting national unity (by requiring candidates to gain support across various states), and its protection against simple majority rule in a diverse nation.