The Electoral College fails to represent the will of the people
September 11, 2019
Our Founding Fathers believed the general public lacked the capacity to efficiently and effectively elect the president of the U.S., which is why they established the Electoral College as the mode of electing the president.
The fear of “the mob” or “the tyranny of the majority” is evident in Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper 68 where he writes “The immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station … A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”
However, in 2019, this is no longer a valid argument in favor of the Electoral College. With access to a multitude of news and media platforms as well as access to education for all Americans, it is safe to say that citizens are very capable of possessing “the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations,” which is what Hamilton was most concerned about.
The Electoral College has failed to represent the American public five times throughout United States history. In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016, a presidential candidate has won the election, despite losing the popular vote.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by 540,520, yet lost the electoral college by five votes. George W. Bush was sworn in as President.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton received 2,868,686 more votes than Donald Trump, but lost the electoral college vote 227 to 304.
This is not democracy.
Electors are supposed to represent the citizens of America, but this isn’t always the case in reality. If Americans can directly elect their governors, senators and representatives, why should the presidential election be any different?
The Electoral College was introduced to protect small states from the bigger, more populous states having too much influence in an election. However, the tables have turned. The smallest, least populous states are guaranteed a minimum of three electoral votes, far exceeding their population. This unequally distributes the votes among the states, making some votes more “valuable” depending on where you live.
The least populated state is Wyoming, with a population of 577,737 in 2018, and it gets three electoral votes. In comparison, there are over 200,000 more people living in California’s 53rd Congressional District, home to San Diego State, than in Wyoming. The entire state of California had a population of 39,557,045 in 2018.
Wyoming’s three electors represent 192,579 people each. For California, each elector represents 719,219 people, meaning each elector in California is representing more people in a district alone than the entire state of Wyoming. A vote cast in Wyoming is worth about 3.7 times as much as a vote cast in California.
This is not equal representation.
At a time of increased voter suppression efforts, the flawed electoral college further diminishes American’s belief in the democratic process. This in turn has led a vast number of Americans, especially young people, to believe that their vote doesn’t matter. America prides itself on being the democratic leader of the free world, yet our Constitution has created a system in which voting power is unequal.
It is about time America abolished the Electoral College and rely on the popular vote instead.
This would require a Constitutional Amendment, so for those who think that’s too much work and could never happen, I propose this: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact website claims, “The National Popular Vote Interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” Once a state signs the National Popular Vote bill, they would give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, not their state’s popular vote. Once enough states ratify the bill to equal a sum of 270 electoral votes, the popular vote would technically be the determinant of who is elected as president.
It is, in effect, a loophole, and a way of overriding the flawed electoral college system. So far, it has been enacted in 12 states equaling 172 electoral votes. The bill is currently being passed through several chambers in 23 states, meaning that we are one step closer to getting rid of the Electoral College for good.
With a major general election coming up in 2020, we can not let the defective and outdated Electoral College interfere with democracy once more.
Peyton Antil is a freshman studying journalism and political science.
David Triplett • Sep 13, 2019 at 2:13 pm
I earnestly hope that long before you reach my age you will come to the realization that our society, in addition to the benefits that make it a worldwide beacon of hope, contains within it the seeds of its destruction. Men and groups of men wielding enormous wealth and influence who wish to subtly and invisibly bend the minds and thoughts of unsuspecting and naive citizens (and freshmen) to their own ambitions are continuously and patiently subverting the structure so carefully built by the founders. The founding fathers were fully aware that unscrupulous and ambitious men would be gnawing at the very foundations of the new society. Hence the safeguard of the Electoral College.
It is easy to defend a just society when it is openly attacked. Sabotage and sedition can do even more damage when those being attacked are asleep or deceived.
Please do not be deceived. Think about George Soros. Read about him. Imagine what living in his Open Society would be like. Think about treachery. Think of the recent revelations about Google deliberately manipulating algorithms to influence millions of voters. Think about Comey, McCabe (and many others to come), an unthinkable disgrace that would never have been detected under your popular vote.
The one thing that I remember most about my high school journalism teacher was her constant drumming on neutrality. That was reinforced by my chemistry teacher’s insistence on evidence and proof. Are those qualities still being taught? I hope so, I fear not. I hope you are not proposing a new final chapter to “1984.”
Mark Buckley • Sep 11, 2019 at 7:32 pm
While I support the NPV compact, it does not solve the spoiler problem, namely that either party might split its vote between two candidates, one from the establishment and the other an independent, thereby handing the election to the plurality on the other side. (The plurality, rather than a majority, would be the winner of the NPV.) Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose easily took enough votes from President Taft in 1912 to hand the election to Woodrow Wilson. Texas billionaire Ross Perot took 19% of the national vote in 1992, almost all of it in GOP strongholds like rural Montana and Iowa. But Perot and Bush the Elder combined had way more votes than Bill Clinton: Clinton took the presidency, but the GOP won the election. …. This is ironic, considering that the most vocal defenders of the College are conservatives who don’t want New York and California picking the president. Or so they believe. They are statistically mistaken, for what it’s worth. Urban votes alone are not enough to accede to the Oval Office.
Asa Kaplan • Sep 11, 2019 at 12:31 pm
Make that 15 states plus DC, as of July 2019. A total of 196 electoral votes committed.
tom carney • Sep 11, 2019 at 11:36 am
The electoral college is to represent the views of the several states, not that of the people. And the small states rate being heard; this is a democratic republic. The small states would amount for nothing if the president was elected by the people of NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and the like.
Joe Solis • Sep 11, 2019 at 10:37 am
The Electoral College ensures that
A: Presidential candidates have broad support nationally, not just in the large population centers, and:
B: That people in ALL of the States have a voice in electing a President.
If we go to a National Popular vote, Millions of people will be dis-enfranchised.
Think of the popular vote as two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, and YOU’RE the sheep.
Think of the EC as three wolves, a sheep and a pig also voting by species on what’s for dinner and each species gets a vote, and you’re a sheep or pig.
I’m sure that had the 2016 election gone the other way, there would be NO talk about eliminating the EC.
Susan Anthony • Sep 11, 2019 at 6:45 am
The bill only would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.