Is the Electoral College Outdated? A Look at the Debate Ahead of the 2020 Election
As the 2020 election approaches, a long-standing debate over the Electoral College system is intensifying. While many voters are focused on choosing their preferred candidate, the question of how their vote translates into the presidency – a system determined by the Electoral College – is becoming increasingly relevant.
The Electoral College, a cornerstone of American democracy since its inception, elects the president based on state-level vote totals rather than a national popular vote. This system has led to two highly controversial outcomes in recent history. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush after a Supreme Court decision regarding vote recounts in Florida. Similarly, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes, yet Donald Trump won the presidency by securing the necessary electoral votes.
These events have reignited debate over the Electoral College’s fairness. Supporters argue that the system guarantees representation for all states, even less populous ones, preventing candidates from focusing solely on large urban centers. Additionally, they point to the Electoral College’s role in maintaining a stable government, noting that it has facilitated a peaceful transfer of power for over two centuries.
Opponents, however, argue that the system is undemocratic, giving undue weight to smaller states and enabling candidates to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote. They argue that the current system leaves many voters feeling disenfranchised and their votes marginalized. Groups like the National Popular Vote organization are actively campaigning for a change, advocating for a system where the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide wins the presidency.
The debate has taken on a new urgency as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the constitutional right of electors to vote for candidates who did not win their state’s popular vote. This decision could have significant implications for the 2020 election and beyond.
While the Electoral College remains a fundamental part of the American political landscape, its future is uncertain. With growing calls for reform and a Supreme Court decision looming, the debate over the Electoral College is likely to continue shaping the national conversation in the years to come.
The Electoral College: A System in Flux as 2020 Election Looms
With the 2020 election approaching, many voters recognize that where they vote may be more consequential than who they vote for. Like most elections, a handful of states will determine the winner. That’s because of the Electoral College, a system that chooses the president based on state vote totals, not the national popular vote. Recent history has shown the winning candidate for president doesn’t even need to earn the most individual votes to win the Electoral College vote. Two outcomes have ignited the debate on the fairness of the Electoral College. In 2000, former Vice President Al Gore received the most votes nationally, winning what’s called the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes over former Texas Governor George W. Bush. In 2016, President Donald Trump beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by 74 Electoral votes despite losing the popular vote by nearly three million. This article explores the history and complexities of the Electoral College system and examines the arguments for and against its continued use.
Key Takeaways:
- The Electoral College is a system that chooses the president based on state vote totals, not the national popular vote.
- The Electoral College was created as a compromise during the Constitutional Convention, ensuring that candidates wouldn’t ignore large parts of the country.
- The system has its critics, who point to the fact that it has resulted in the election of presidents who did not win the popular vote.
- The system has its supporters, who argue that it promotes the states’ right to be fully recognized in the voting process and prevents recount chaos.
- The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the state popular vote.
A History of Compromise and Controversy
The Electoral College is a body of legislative officials that directly elects the President of the United States. It’s a system that’s been in place for more than 200 years, and while it’s changed over time, the concept has stayed the same. The idea was adopted during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. As explained by Professor [Professor’s name], a scholar of American history, "This was actually a compromise. There was a big fight inside the convention. They had to work out a compromise because otherwise, you know, many of the states would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution and become part of the United States of America."
The compromise aimed to balance the interests of large and small states. “I think the compromise takes into account, on the one hand, people being able to vote and choose the candidates they want, but on the other hand, ensuring that candidates don’t ignore large parts of the country," stated Professor [Professor’s name].
The Constitution sets up the Electoral College and assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state. There’s a total of 538 electoral votes. Presidential electors meet in mid-December after the people vote in November, and they are the ones who actually elect the president. When you are at a polling booth to vote, you are actually voting not directly for a candidate, but you are voting for electors who have pledged that, when the electors meet in December, they will vote for a particular candidate. To be elected president, the candidate must receive 270 or a majority of the 538 votes cast.
How Electoral Votes are Determined:
- Each state receives a number of electoral votes equal to its total number of representatives in the House of Representatives plus its two senators.
- The District of Columbia receives three electoral votes; this is based on the 23rd Amendment.
- States’ populations determine how many electors they get. This number may change every 10 years when the census is conducted and states lose or gain population.
The Winner-Take-All System
The vast majority of states follow a winner-take-all approach. This means that even when an individual wins by a relatively small margin of victory, the winner-take-all system gives that candidate all of the state’s electoral votes. "One of the advantages of the winner-take-all system, which forty-eight states have (two states don’t do it that way), is that it means that even when an individual wins and there’s a relatively small margin of victory, the winner-take-all system gives that winning candidate a mandate," explained Professor [Professor’s name].
Maine and Nebraska are the two exceptions to this rule. They allow for more than one candidate to earn electoral votes. This more proportional system is designed to better reflect the preferences of voters within each state.
The framers of the Constitution were concerned that a system based solely on the national popular vote would lead to candidates focusing only on large urban areas, neglecting the needs of rural and less populated regions. "The framers were afraid that if we had a system based simply on the national popular vote, then candidates would simply go to the big cities, the big urban areas, and they would ignore the more rural, less populated parts of the country," commented Professor [Professor’s name].
The Electoral College and Indirect Democracy
The creation of the Electoral College can be seen as consistent with the founders’ emphasis on indirect democracy. Professor [Professor’s name] explained, "There’s no sort of national politics properly speaking, and so it wasn’t clear that you could basically ask ordinary people in the street in all the different parts – the city may not know of the same people, right? So the idea of making an indirect [vote], of having the state legislators do what state legislators, they thought, you know, would have a sort of awareness of what was going on in national politics."
Arguments for and Against the Electoral College
The Electoral College has been the subject of much debate, with strong arguments on both sides.
Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College:
- Stability and Peacefulness: Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it has facilitated a peaceful transfer of power for more than two centuries. "We’ve had an extremely stable government for over 200 years. That’s actually a historical record when you look at the history of the world. And I think those who argue that we should get rid of this have not really presented good and valid reasons to get rid of a system that has led to such stability." commented Professor [Professor’s name]. It’s remarkable that every four years, or eight years when a president serves more than one term, the keys to the power of the most powerful government in the world have been peacefully handed over.
- Representation of States’ Rights: Proponents of the Electoral College argue that it promotes the states’ right to be fully recognized in the voting process, ensuring that candidates do not ignore the needs of smaller states.
- Preventing Recount Chaos: The Electoral College system helps prevent the kind of recount chaos that could occur if the president was elected solely by the national popular vote. "It prevents the kind of recount chaos that we could potentially have that would make what happened in Florida in 2000 look mild by comparison".
Arguments Against the Electoral College:
- Unfair and Undemocratic: Critics of the Electoral College argue that it is an undemocratic system because it can result in the election of a president who did not win the popular vote. "The problem is not in the Electoral College. It’s in these state laws that the states have passed that give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes on a state-by-state basis," stated a spokesperson for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The issue is that the winner-take-all system disproportionately benefits the candidate who wins by even a small margin, giving them all of that state’s electoral votes.
- Distortion of Votes: Opponents of the system argue that it gives larger states an unfair advantage, diminishing the influence of smaller states.
- Unfair to Voters: Critics argue that the Electoral College system means that votes in certain states have more weight than votes in other states, making the system inherently unfair.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and the Future of the Electoral College:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a legislative effort to change the way the president is elected. The purpose of this interstate compact is "to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia." The legislation has been enacted by 15 states and the District of Columbia, representing more than 190 electoral votes. This means that once states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes have adopted the compact, the president will be elected by the candidate who wins the national popular vote, even if they lose the Electoral College.
Supporters of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact believe that it is a necessary step to ensure that the president is chosen by the majority of voters. They argue that the current system is unfair and undemocratic, and that it undermines the will of the people.
Opponents of the compact argue that it would erode the power of the states and that it would not be effective in ensuring that the president is elected by a majority of the voters. They argue that the Electoral College is a key part of the American system of government and that it should be preserved.
The Supreme Court’s Role
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of laws requiring electors to vote in accordance with the state popular vote. The Supreme Court justices are considering two cases – one from Washington and one from Colorado. In both states, electors voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, even though Donald Trump won the popular vote in those states. The Washington and Colorado cases raise important questions about the role of electors in presidential elections. Do electors have a constitutional right to vote for their own candidate, even if that candidate did not win the state popular vote?
The Supreme Court’s decision in these cases could have a significant impact on the future of the Electoral College. If the Court rules that electors can vote for their own candidate, it would make it more difficult for states to enforce laws requiring electors to vote in accordance with the state popular vote.
The Path Forward
The debate over the Electoral College is likely to continue. The next presidential election will likely highlight the key issues in this debate, including the potential for a candidate to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote. The Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of laws requiring electors to vote in accordance with the state popular vote will also be a key factor in the future of the Electoral College.
While the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is gaining momentum, it is unclear if it will gain enough support to change the way the president is elected. "The United States will adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, probably in time for the 2024 election," commented Professor [Professor’s name].
As the country heads into the next election, the question of the Electoral College’s future will remain a major point of contention. Whether the system remains a fixture of American democracy or undergoes significant changes, the debate over its fairness and legitimacy is not going to fade away anytime soon.
