This past Presidential election was the most polarizing yet and was the first time that people truly began to be defined by who they had voted for. The Electoral College played a recurring role for both major candidates. It was first bashed by businessman Donald Trump, when it appeared not to be in his favor, whilst promoted by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the election and then attacked by many of her supporters, although not by Clinton herself, after the election. Some even called for the Electoral College to reject the accepted standard and give Clinton the presidency because she had 2.8 million more votes than Trump in the popular vote.
The entire process left voters confused by, delighted with, or annoyed by the Electoral College.Established alongside the Constitution, the Electoral College is an integral part of the democratic process in America. However, it is certainly not perfect, a fact often exacerbated by politically motivated criticism on both sides of the aisle, as Trump would most certainly have opposed it had he lost. Regardless, it is important for Americans to understand what it is in order to decide whether or not a replacement is warranted.
The Electoral College is comprised of 538 electors who represent their states on a national level. The number of electors each state receives depends on how many representatives it has in Congress, which is based on population. Depending on the November voting of qualified American citizens, certain electors are told to vote for certain candidates. These electors then officially cast a ballot sometime in December, and the candidate who reaches a majority, currently 270 electors, wins the election.
Critics complain that almost all states are winner take all states (48), which means anyone who receives more than 50% of the popular vote in a particular state receives 100% of the electoral votes from that state. This is seen as particularly troublesome for the “safe states,” as opposed to “swing states,” which historically vote for the same party. This means that a Republican vote in California is worthless, just as a Democrat vote in Texas is similarly useless.
However, this past election turned this argument on its head as many states presumed “blue” turned “red,” which allowed Donald Trump to capture the presidency, and hardcore conservative states like Texas were contested for the first time in years.
Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes, but won the Electoral College handily. In fact, a candidate could win the presidency by just receiving 22% of the popular vote by winning the 39 smallest states.
Another problem is that despite laws, fines and possible jail time, many electors chose to be unfaithful to the candidate whom the people chose. Hillary Clinton, for example, had the most unfaithful electors since 1912. Despite this, the belief that a select few determine the fates of millions of Americans is ridiculous. Not only do many states punish unfaithful electors, many, including Minnesota, render it impossible for them to vote for anyone other than their predetermined candidate as per state laws. Also, while Clinton had the most unfaithful electors of the past century, there were only eight of them against Trump’s two. Eight out of 538, little more than one percent, was the worst case of the last century. To put that into perspective, she would have needed almost 14% of the electors to switch from Trump’s side to hers in order to win the presidency.
The Electoral College does serve a necessary, if unsavory, purpose. Originally designed by the Founding Fathers, it aims at preserving the rights of smaller states. Assuming each state's number of electors was directly proportionate to its population, smaller states, such as Wyoming or the Dakotas, would have practically no say in how an election turned out as opposed to larger states, such as California and New York.
Additionally, adopting a popular vote standard, something many have called for, adds a slew of problems. First, candidates would naturally campaign in big cities and simply avoid suburbs or smaller states, perhaps even Minnesota, because they wouldn’t be worth the time. Also, elections tend to be close, and if a national recount was necessary, it would be a disaster on a completely different scale than the 2000 Florida fiasco. A strictly popular vote would also be impractical to institute.
Currently, there are two options for revising the election process: amending the Constitution, which smaller states will never agree to, or walking around the Constitution by mandating that states must vote for whomever won the US popular vote, something 11 states have already signed onto as part of the National Popular Vote Plan. This plan, if not struck down by the Supreme Court, is additionally unsuitable. Imagine the uproar if a Democratic stronghold, Washington state, voted for Trump by the latter method.
The Electoral College, just as any election process, is messy. However, decisions to change it should not be politically motivated. It is a system unique to America and has, for better or worse, shaped this country into what it has become today. What cannot happen, however, is an insistence that it should be changed on the basis of election results. In fact, the chances that a candidate will win the election, but lose the popular vote are extremely low, and it has only happened five times before. Whatever you think now, one must become educated before he or she votes, as at stake is the deciding of the leader of the “civilized world.”