For years, Americans have expressed concerns about the fairness of the Electoral College and called for its removal. Many argue that the system does not give equal weight to everyone’s vote, leading to America’s decreasing voter turnout. Additionally, certain U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam have no electoral votes whatsoever, leaving millions of American citizens without a direct say in presidential elections. They also point out how candidates disproportionately focus on campaigning in “swing states”—states where the race is more competitive—while ignoring “safe states” that are predicted to vote for a particular party. Perhaps the most criticism of all is centered around the fact that the Electoral College can, and has, led to the election of a president who did not win the popular vote. Recently, this has occurred in the 2000 election when George W. Bush won the presidency against Al Gore, and again in 2016 when Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
While these arguments do pose valid concern, the continued use of the electoral college is still a subject of debate in America. Supporters of the system argue that it is beneficial in encouraging political stability through the two-party system and ensuring that candidates address the interests of less populated, rural areas. Without the electoral college, they fear that presidential campaigns would focus exclusively on heavily populated urban areas, completely neglecting the needs of rural citizens. To understand why the electoral college is still around though, it’s important to understand how it came to be. The system was created by the founding fathers, writers of the US Constitution, as a compromise between those who wanted the president elected by Congress and those who favored a direct popular vote. At the time, the electoral college was seen as the most logical way to balance the influence of smaller states with larger ones and promote federalism in the new nation. Today, however, in a modern America with a total of 50 states, many argue that the system is outdated and no longer serves its original purpose. Unfortunately though, abolishing the electoral college entirely would require a constitutional amendment. In order to do that, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must approve the proposal, and then three-fourths of state legislatures must ratify it. But given the current state of extreme political polarization in America, achieving this level of agreement is quite unlikely in the near future.
So, how can we address the shortcomings of the electoral college without completely getting rid of it? One solution would be to change the way electors cast their votes, getting rid of the winner-take-all system. Instead of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes within that state, states could apportion their electoral votes according to the percentage of votes earned. This method would allow voters in all states to have a more equal impact on the election outcome, even in states that typically lean strongly toward one party. Additionally, the system would still promote the federal structure of the Electoral College, leaving states to continue running elections. This simple fix would also help avoid the situation where the candidate who loses the popular vote still becomes president.Luckily, a movement towards this process is already in progress with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). It is a proposed agreement between states to award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in their individual states. So far, 17 states and the District of Columbia—representing a total of 209 electoral votes—have signed on to the agreement. The pact will only go into effect though once enough states, together totaling 270 electoral votes, have joined. With just 61 more electoral votes needed, the agreement could be a practical and more efficient way to create change in the election process without requiring a difficult constitutional amendment. By making electoral votes more closely reflect public opinions, this approach may also address many of the criticisms associated with the current electoral college system. While the debate over the Electoral College is far from over, steps like these may be the best solution to changing our election process, without completely dismantling the system.