Introduction
- The electoral college has been controversial
- It sometimes contradicts the popular vote
- The 2016 election is an example
- Trump won despite Clinton’s popular vote advantage
- However, this result is ultimately desirable
The 2016 election has been divisive, with the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, winning the race with a 74-elector advantage despite being nearly 3 million votes behind. There have been critiques of the electoral college process, as a result, that highlighted the disparity and considered it an indicator of voter inequality. However, this paper will argue that, while this inequality exists, it is a necessary part of the process that stems from the nation’s origins.
Popular and Electoral Vote Disparity
- First and simplest argument against the electoral college
- Mismatch between results calls them into doubt
- The electoral college elects the unpopular candidate
- It does not represent the people’s will
- As such, the system is flawed
As the 2016 election shows, a candidate can win convincingly even though a majority of voters support another person. Such a system can be considered undemocratic and unfair, as the new President is effectively forced upon the majority that disapproves of them. As such, results such as Donald Trump’s victory call into question the fairness of the process, which reflected the will of the few rather than the many.
The Downfalls of the Popular Vote
- Popular vote does not elect popular candidates
- France can serve as an example
- Popular vote favors regional or radical candidates
- The U.S. has an unevenly distributed population
- States such as California would dominate excessively
Ross (2019) highlights two recent French elections, where the winning candidates received less than 30% of the votes. He claims that their radicalism and regionality created a dedicated small support base that guaranteed their victory. The electoral college provides protections against extremism by forcing candidates to make coalitions to be nominated and against regionality, by preventing the provision of overwhelming power to densely populated states.
The Importance of Swing States
- Many states have a dominant, loyal majority
- The winner usually gets all electors’ votes
- As a result, campaigners ignore them
- They focus on the “swing” states
- Other states’ needs are, therefore, ignored
Presidential campaigns have finite amounts of resources and time, which leads to the question of efficient allocation. There is no significant advantage to focusing on a state where a majority of voters are highly likely to vote a certain way. As a result, campaigns will typically focus on states where either candidate could win to swing it in their favor to the detriment of the others.
The Electoral College Is a Non-Factor in Strategic Decisions
- Campaigns will still aim to maximize efficiency
- They will seek significant vote swings
- More densely populated areas would be targeted
- They would replace swing states as overemphasized
- Ultimately, there would be no difference
The abolition of the electoral college would not supply presidential campaigns with the resources that they would need to campaign nationwide. As a result, they would focus on efforts that generate the largest numbers of votes. States with large undecided populations and states with high population densities would make natural targets, supplanting swing states without meaningful changes in fairness.
Voter Inequality
- California has approximately 40 million residents
- Wyoming has approximately 600 thousand residents
- California has 55 electors, Wyoming has 3
- Wyoming voters are 3.5 times as important
- There is inequality between U.S. citizens
California, the most populous state, has approximately 700,000 citizens per elector, and Wyoming, the least populated one, has 200,000. Per Edwards (2019), this disparity means that citizens of smaller states have more political influence than those in large ones. As such, voters in the United States are unequal, which is against democratic principles.
The Purpose of the Electoral College
- The electoral college is in the Constitution
- Each state’s approval was necessary for ratification
- Parallels to the Connecticut Compromise exist
- Population-based representation would disenfranchise some states
- State equality more important than citizen equality
When the Constitution was being designed to replace the Articles of Confederation and strengthen the central government, smaller states were concerned about their autonomy. As a result, the Connecticut Compromise was made, which guaranteed each state’s equal representation in the legislature. The nation’s citizens have never been equal on the federal level by design, and changing that would go against the U.S.’s founding principles.
Conclusion
- The electoral college serves an essential purpose
- That purpose is still relevant today
- Arguments against it misunderstand the system
- Citizens are equal within the state
- However, voter equality harms the federation
The United States is one of the biggest nations in the world, one that incorporates different communities with varying needs and beliefs. As such, the issues of popular-vote systems are exacerbated in it, and the electoral college serves as protection against this problem. The voter inequality that may be created as a result of the system is counteracted by the limited authority of the federal government and the President, specifically. Voters are equal and free to govern themselves in their states democratically, but they should not be able to suppress other states through overwhelming numbers.
References
Edwards, G. C. (2019). Why the electoral college is bad for America (3rd ed.). Yale University Press.
Presidential election results: Donald J. Trump wins. (2017). The New York Times.
Ross, T. (2019). Why we need the electoral college. Gateway Editions.