When Americans head to the polls to elect a president, many believe they are directly casting a vote for their preferred candidate. However, in the complex U.S. system, we don't directly elect the president through a nationwide popular vote. Instead, we use a system called the Electoral College, which can allow a candidate with fewer popular votes to be declared the winner. Let’s examine how it works and its impact on American democracy.

What is the Electoral College?

At its simplest, the Electoral College is a group of electors chosen by each state and the District of Columbia. When you vote for a presidential candidate, you are actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to that candidate. The number of electors each state gets is based on its total number of representatives in Congress—its two senators plus its number of House representatives, which is determined by population. For example, a state with a large population like California has many electors, while a smaller state like Wyoming has only a few.

To win the presidency, a candidate needs to secure a majority of these electoral votes—currently 270 out of a total of 538. In almost all states, it's a "winner-take-all" system: the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state receives all of that state's electoral votes, regardless of how close the vote was.

Arguments For the Electoral College

Supporters of the Electoral College often point to several reasons for their support.

One major argument is that it protects the interests of smaller states. Without the Electoral College, the concern is that presidential candidates might only focus their attention and campaign efforts on densely populated areas, effectively ignoring the needs and concerns of states with fewer residents. The Electoral College ensures that candidates must build broad coalitions across different states, including those with smaller populations, to win enough electoral votes.

Another argument is that it promotes national unity and prevents a "tyranny of the majority." The framers of the Constitution were wary of undiluted democracy, fearing that a simple majority could override the rights or interests of minority groups or less populous regions. The Electoral College, in this view, forces candidates to appeal to diverse groups and regions rather than just catering to the largest population centers. It encourages candidates to have a national strategy, not just a regional one.

Furthermore, some argue that the Electoral College helps to ensure a clear winner and provides stability. By requiring a candidate to win a majority of electoral votes, it can sometimes turn a narrow popular vote victory into a clearer electoral mandate, which can be seen as providing more legitimacy to the presidency.

Arguments Against the Electoral College

Despite these arguments, the Electoral College has faced significant criticism, particularly in recent decades when some losing candidates got selected by the college.

One criticism is that it’s possible for a candidate to win the presidency without winning the nationwide popular vote. This has happened five times in U.S. history, most recently in 2000 and 2016. Critics argue that this undermines the fundamental democratic principle of "one person, one vote," where the candidate with the most votes from the people should win. When the popular vote winner loses, it can lead to feelings of disenfranchisement and questions about fairness.

Another concern is that the winner-take-all system leads presidential campaigns to focus almost exclusively on a handful of "swing states"—states where the outcome is uncertain and could go either way. This means voters in reliably "red" or "blue" states often feel their vote doesn't matter as much, as their state's electoral votes are largely predetermined. This can lead to lower voter turnout in those states and a sense that their voices are not heard by candidates.

Critics also contend that the Electoral College disproportionately empowers voters in smaller states compared to those in larger states. Because every state gets at least three electoral votes (two senators plus at least one representative), a vote in a less populous state can statistically carry more weight than a vote in a highly populous state when translated into electoral votes. For example, a single electoral vote in Wyoming represents approximately 190,000 people, while a single electoral vote in California represents about 718,000 people.

Finally, some argue that the Electoral College is an outdated system that no longer serves its original purpose. They suggest that modern communication, education and transportation make it easier for candidates to campaign nationally and for voters to be informed, rendering the original concerns about an uninformed populace or regional candidates less relevant.

The Ongoing Debate

The debate over the Electoral College is not new, but it intensifies whenever its outcome differs from the popular vote. Those who advocate for its abolition or reform often propose a national popular vote system, perhaps with a run-off if no candidate reaches a certain percentage, or the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

The Electoral College was designed at a time when the nation was vastly different. It represents a tension between the vote of the population and the protection of state interests. Understanding this system is key to informed discussions about how we choose our leaders and what kind of democracy we want for the future.