The Electoral College system is vital to preserving state powers that the popular vote could destroy.
If the U.S. used the popular vote instead, California and New York voters would decide every election while completely alienating Americans who live in the middle of the country with their own set of problems.
The Electoral College is a step in the presidential voting process that allows each state to cast their vote as a sovereign governing body.
In today’s divided political climate, it is important to remember the U.S. is made up of 50 states with vastly different economies, laws and political views.
This system gives states with smaller populations more power for their votes compared to states with larger populations. For example, the residents of Oklahoma or Arkansas have more weight to their winner-take-all votes than the many residents living in California or Texas.
Some may call the existence of the Electoral College voter suppression or a departure from democracy because with the system’s winner-take-all method, not every vote counts.
But if the U.S. switched to a strictly popular vote, it could be seen as voter suppression for small population states where there are fewer people to cast votes. States with small populations like Idaho would not stand a chance against states like California.
Electors chosen by various methods throughout the country cast state votes for candidates who champion their issues best. Issues that the states care about.
The founding fathers created the Electoral College system in the Constitution to prevent tyranny from tarnishing our newly formed government.
They believed in federalism, a form of government that affirms state rights, as colonists identified themselves with their state. Today, that belief is instilled in the Electoral College.
According to National Affairs, a magazine about political affairs, a Wyoming resident’s vote carries 3.6 times more weight with the Electoral College than each California voter.
This shows that the Electoral College empowers less populous states to influence the country’s politics.
It makes the presidential race competitive and representative, as it did in 2016 when Donald Trump campaigned in battleground states longer than Hillary Clinton and won the presidency through the Electoral College.
With larger states carrying big elector vote counts, popular candidates typically sweep these up.
If there was direct democracy instead, the U.S. would be run by urbanites who have no idea about the lives of rural Americans and simply don’t care.
According to a 2016 Vox article, votes in solid red or blue states for opposing candidates are “wasted votes” and “swing state privilege” exists, and at times it does feel that way.
However, popular political views influence mainstream media and socially acceptable political beliefs. Smaller states are still able to make an impact through their heavy voting power if they do not agree with the mainstream.
Another argument for the abolishment of the Electoral College is that the popular vote would be a more straightforward voting system. However, this would cause more of a divide in America because of our two-party system, further proving the Electoral College is crucial to the presidential election process and keeping the country together.
According to a 2012 Politico article, “A simple, direct democracy will centralize all power — government, business, money, media and votes — in urban areas to the detriment of the rest of the nation.”
In fact, the Electoral College makes things more straightforward with its winner-take-all rule. If a Republican candidate took 56% of the votes in Montana, they would take all three of the electoral votes, which was exactly the case in 2016 when Trump first ran.
The call to abolish the Electoral College is a one-sided agenda where people are only upset when their candidate loses. Besides, throughout most of our history, a vast majority of popular vote winners also won the Electoral College and became president.
By keeping the system in place, states rights are preserved and less populous states can give their citizens a fighting chance.
