A lot of talk surrounding presidential elections regards the Electoral College, an archaic system built by the framers of the US Constitution to turn a national election more republican, focussing on empowering the states over the total population of the nation. This was done as a part of negotiations with smaller states who were afraid that joining a large union would mean their power and influence would be dwarfed by larger states. In essence, the Electoal College served as a “tyranny of the minority” to counter a potential “tyranny of the majority,” and used the already established counter balance of Senator total to do so.
Each state would recieve as many electoral votes as they had members in Congress. The idea was that this would ensure that larger states would still gain power because of their Representatives (distributed by population) while smaller states would get a boost by the equal distribution of 2 US Senators per state. As no state would have less than 1 Representative and 2 Senators, no state would have less than 3 electoral votes to cast for President of the USA.
When this began, it was serviceable enough. States were allowed to cast their vote any way they chose, though most chose to do so based on statewide popular vote, winner take all. This caused some consternation, as people who voted for a minority party found themselves with absolutely zero influence in the national vote, but the difference between states was not so great as to cause enough complaint to modify the Electoral College system.
Today however tells a different story. Millions of voters are disenfranchised every year, ignored because their state is solidly “Blue” or “Red.” Their votes literally do not count to elect a president of the USA, a large “tyranny of the majority” effect. And the population differences between states has grown so large that an Electoral College vote in a large state takes 7 times the number of votes as one in a smaller state, meaning there is a large “tyranny of the minority” effect as well.
Take the last US presidential election, for example. President Joe Biden won 303 Electoral votes, out of 538, from 26 states, which is a 56% to 44% victory. However, if you count the actual votes across all states, President Joe Biden won 81.3 million votes out of 155.5 million total, which is a 52% to 48% victory. Digging deeper, we find a lot of potentially disturbing facts from this difference.
The total number of Republicans who voted in states that did not provide a single Electoral Vote for their candidate was 38.1 Million. That’s 20.5% of the total electorate, or 1/5th of all US voters.
The total number of Democrats who voted in states that did not provide a single Electoral Vote for their candidate was 28.1 Million. That’s 18.1% of the total electorate, also close to 1/5th of all US voters.
This means that in total, 66.2 million US voters, or 43% of the entire electorate, did not have their vote count to elect the US President.
The “tyranny of the minority” effect shown through on how many voters were need per electoral vote. The largest states had to provide 329,135 voters for every Electoral College vote they got. Meanwhile, the smallest states had only to provide 132,727 voters for each Electoral College vote they got. That’s a significant number, over double the amount of people, meaning that the idea of each US citizen having an equal say in national elections is simply not supported. This would end up impacting Democrats more, as the breakdown of the largest 10 states is a lopsided 2 Solid Blue, 1 Lean Blue, 4 Swing States and 3 Swing Red States, while the breakdown of the smallest 10 states is a more distributed 3 Solid Blue, 2 Lean Blue, 1 Swing, 1 Lean Red and 3 Solid Red states.
The “tyranny of the majority” effect is highlighted by how many voters in every state were not counted, as shown above. This is significantly tilted against Republicans, with them missing out on 117 Electoral Votes versus Democrats missing out on only 93. Moreover, there is an inherent disadvantage for Republicans in that Democrats only need 24 states to win the election, with only 4 out of 7 swing states that tilt in their favor slightly. Meanwhile, Republicans needs to win 28 states, including 3 swing states that tilt in the Democrats’ favor.
So looking at that, it’s hard to defend the Electoral College. But people do still vehemently defend it, usually with the narrative of this being a Union of STATES, not just of people. There is no real fault in this argument, and while many abolishers fight against this idea of Republicanism over “We the People,” it is not the best argument to make for reform.
Instead, a much simpler solution is to keep the Electoral College but have states submit votes based on their statewide vote. This still protects the smaller states, by not adjusting the Electoral College vote total of each state or changing the amount of people need per Electoral College vote, and it engages the more important point of voter disenfranchisement. Each state would thus be worth voting and campaigning in, because even strongholds like California or Texas would yield significant vote totals (19 Electoral College votes each for the other side) without giving an advantage to either side.
This focusses on the real tragedy of the Electoral College, that it removes the power of people to influence national elections outside of swing states, instead of on the politics of which party controls a majority in which state. It also makes swing states equal for both parties, meaning those people can finally have a rest from the relentless focus. And it means that it’s worth it for a Republican to campaign in deeply blue state and Democrats in deeply Red states, and engage their supporters there.
Just look at the difference such a change would make to the totals in the 2020 election:
Not only does each state really get a say, but you’ll also see the real vote better reflected. Purple states are split evenly. Leans are less extreme. And Solid Red or Blue states still give a voice to their minority voters.
This proposal isn’t radical. It’s not political. This is a common sense approach to increasing people’s trust in their voting process and that their vote matters, and it forces politicians to engage all of the nation, rather than a select few. If anyone can find a good argument against this, please let’s debate it below. Otherwise, contact your representative and get them moving on this, because we as a nation need a common cause, and we all should hate the Electoral College as it is now.
Let’s unite and reform for the forgotten people.