The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

The Electoral College has been the method used to elect the president since the founding of the Republic some 250 years ago. From the beginning it was a compromise that satisfied no one and was never meant to be permanent. Its continued use introduces several seriously undemocratic elements into presidential elections. It also causes harmful distortions in the process of electing a president. Arguments for its continued use are either specious or just plain wrong. It is long past time to abandon the Electoral College for an election process that chooses the president by straight popular vote.

What is The Electoral College?

The Electoral College is the method by which the United States elects its president and vice president every four years. This is a slightly simplified explanation of how it works.

Each of the fifty states is allocated electoral votes based on its representation in Congress. There is one electoral vote for each senator, and each state has two senators. One electoral vote is also allocated for each representative, which is one or more based on the state’s population. Washington DC has three electoral votes so the total number of electoral votes is 538.

After the election the popular votes in each state are counted and the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes receives all of that state’s electoral votes. Note that the candidate does not need a majority of the popular vote, merely a plurality, which is a possibility if there are three or more candidates. So, the Electoral College is a winner-take-all system at the state level.

The electoral votes from all states are counted and the candidate with a majority of electoral votes, 270 or more, becomes the president elect. If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (in a race with more than two candidates) the election is determined by the House of Representatives.

Origin of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was adopted in 1787 as a compromise solution after delegates at the Constitutional Convention could not agree on how to choose a president. Some delegates favored having Congress pick the president, but this threatened the separation of powers. Others wanted a direct national popular vote, but this raised fears about “mob” rule and the dominance by large states. Smaller states feared being overshadowed in a purely population‑based system, while others worried voters would lack information about distant candidates in a sprawling, largely rural republic. The Electoral College was adopted as a last-minute compromise that would preserve federalism, give smaller states some extra weight, and keep the president formally independent of Congress while still reflecting the popular will.

The Electoral College Was Always Meant to be Temporary

From the start, many of the Founding Fathers saw the Electoral College as a temporary expedient rather than a permanent and ideal way to select the president. They thought it would likely be modified once the new government was established and running. Nevertheless, despite repeated proposals for direct national election or other reforms, the basic structure of the Electoral College has survived for more than two centuries, which is why the original compromise still shapes presidential politics today.

The EC Does Not Prevent “Tyranny of the Majority.”

The Electoral College (EC) does not prevent “tyranny of the majority,” and that is not why it was initially created. Prevention of “tyranny of the majority” is an essential function of the constitution. The Constitution forbids the government from doing many things regardless of how large a majority is in favor. For example: establishing a state religion, suppressing the press, cruel and unusual punishment, banning guns, and taking property without recompense. The EC has nothing to do with any of these rights.

The Electoral College is Not “How the Framers Wanted It”

The claim that the Founding Fathers “wanted it this way” is not true at all. This argument is sometimes put forward by supporters of the Electoral College, but it is false. As explained above, the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention put the Electoral College in the Constitution as a last-minute compromise and expected that it would be replaced with a better system once the new government was established and running. Despite various proposals over the year, no changes were ever enacted, and the Electoral College remains with us.

Giving Smaller States More Influence is Irrelevant Today

In fact, one main impetus behind the Electoral College was to give the smaller states (population-wise) some extra influence so they would sign onto the constitution in the first place. Back then, 250 years ago, there were real differences between the needs of the various states: manufacturing vs. mercantile vs. agricultural, for example. Today, much less so, and whatever rationale there was for giving smaller states more influence is long gone.

The EC Was Partly Based on Slavery

During the framing of the Constitution, the Southern slaveholding states wanted all of their enslaved people to be counted for the purpose of apportioning representatives to Congress. Of course, the Northern free states did not want them counted at all. The compromise reached was the notorious so-called 3/5 rule, which specified that each enslaved person would count as 3/5 of a person for this apportionment. Because a state’s electoral votes would be equal to the number of congressional representatives they had, The Southern slaveholding states were in favor of the Electoral College because it would give them additional weight in presidential elections. Thus, the Electoral College carries this shameful legacy with it and is something we would be better off without.

The Electoral College Distorts Political Campaigning and Spending

The Electoral College system forces the candidates to focus on winning whole states rather than individual votes. Many of our states, 43 as of the last election, are considered to be “safe” states that are sure to go for one presidential candidate or the other. For a candidate, there is little reason to devote time or money to those states that you are sure to either win or lose. The candidates instead concentrate on the few swing states where your efforts may actually make a difference in the final result. This was definitely the case in 2024 when Pennsylvania alone drew over 60 candidate visits, with other swing states (Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada) each attracting dozens. By contrast, large safe states such as California and Texas saw very few or no classic campaign rallies, with candidate visits limited almost entirely to fund raising. Campaign spending on ads followed the same pattern.

The Electoral College Discourages Voter Participation

Under the electoral college system, voters in a safe state are disincentivized to vote. Why bother? When it’s a sure thing that your candidate is going to either win or lose the state you might as well stay home. The result is voter apathy, and fewer people paying attention to the issues and evaluating the candidates. This is not the basis of a strong democracy. With presidential election by popular vote, every single vote counts no matter how “safe” your state.

The Electoral College is Inherently Undemocratic in Two Ways

First, it permits the election of a president who lost the popular vote. This happened in 2000 when Al Gore received half a million more votes than George W. Bush but Bush became president thanks to the Electoral College. It also happened in 2016 when Donald Trump became president despite receiving 2.9 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. When a candidate can lose the vote but win the election there is something seriously wrong.

Second, the Electoral College violates the fundamental democratic principle of “one person one vote.” Because of the way electoral votes are allocated to states, the smaller states get more electoral votes relative to their population than do the larger states. This results in individual voters in the smaller states having a greater influence over the result of the election. Look at Wyoming and California. Each Wyoming electoral vote represents roughly 196,000 people, while each California electoral vote represents about 732,000 people, so an individual Wyomingite has around 3.7 times the Electoral College weight of a Californian. This is not by any stretch of the imagination “one person one vote.”

The Electoral College is Not Essential to Federalism

Federalism in the US divides and shares power between the federal government and the state governments. Each level has its own constitutionally protected powers. Claims that the Electoral College is essential for federalism are greatly exaggerated. Federalism is already strongly expressed through the Senate, House apportionment, and state powers. The presidency is our only nationwide elective office and as such would be better served by a truly national election.

Conclusions: Selecting the President by Popular Vote is the Answer

The Electoral College has been with us since the founding of the Republic 250 years ago. It was a last-minute compromise enacted in order to complete and ratify the Constitution; it was not really satisfactory to the Founders and it was expected that it would be soon replaced by a better method for selecting the President. It has served us adequately, but in the past few decades its shortcomings have become more evident. It has given us two presidents who have lost the popular vote: George W Bush in 2000 and Donald J Trump in 2016. It may be coincidence, but these two presidents are widely considered to be perhaps the worst to have ever served. Both are Republicans.

The Electoral College violates one of most important principles of any democracy: one person one vote. It also introduces serious distortions into the conduct and financing of campaigns. Its “winner take all” nature at the state level discourages voting and leads to apathy among the electorate.

Some people continue to argue in favor of the Electoral College, but their arguments are shown to be for the most part either wrong or specious.

Changing from the Electoral College to a direct nationwide popular vote would require amending the Constitution, a difficult and arduous process. Any change will face institutional inertia and resistance from the political factions currently enjoying an advantage from the Electoral College. Nevertheless it is an effort worth making.