electoral college pros and cons essay

Electoral College Pros and Cons

• U.S. Political System
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Legal System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.S., Texas A&M University

The Electoral College system , long a source of controversy, came under especially heavy criticism after the 2016 presidential election when Republican Donald Trump lost the nationwide popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes but won the Electoral College—and thus the presidency—by 74 electoral votes .

• Gives the smaller states an equal voice.
• Prevents disputed outcomes ensuring a peaceful transition of power
• Reduces the costs of national presidential campaigns.
• Can disregard the will of the majority.
• Gives too few states too much electoral power.
• Reduces voter participation by creating a “my vote doesn’t matter” feeling.

By its very nature, the Electoral College system is confusing . When you vote for a presidential candidate, you are actually voting for a group of electors from your state who have all “pledged” to vote for your candidate. Each state is allowed one elector for each of its Representatives and Senators in Congress. There are currently 538 electors, and to be elected, a candidate must get the votes of at least 270 electors.

The Obsolescence Debate

The Electoral College system was established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. The Founding Fathers chose it as a compromise between allowing Congress to choose the president and having the president elected directly by the popular vote of the people. The Founders believed that most common citizens of the day were poorly educated and uninformed on political issues. Consequently, they decided that using the “proxy” votes of the well-informed electors would lessen the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the voices of the minority are drowned out by those of the masses. Additionally, the Founders reasoned that the system would prevent states with larger populations from having an unequal influence on the election.

Critics, however, argue that Founder’s reasoning is no longer relevant as today’s voters are better-educated and have virtually unlimited access to information and to the candidates’ stances on the issues. In addition, while the Founders considered the electors as being “free from any sinister bias” in 1788, electors today are selected by the political parties and are usually “pledged” to vote for the party’s candidate regardless of their own beliefs.

Today, opinions on the future of the Electoral College range from protecting it as the basis of American democracy to abolishing it completely as an ineffective and obsolete system that may not accurately reflect the will of the people. What are some of the main advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College?

Advantages of the Electoral College 

• Promotes fair regional representation: The Electoral College gives the small states an equal voice. If the president was elected by the popular vote alone, candidates would mold their platforms to cater to the more populous states. Candidates would have no desire to consider, for example, the needs of farmers in Iowa or commercial fishermen in Maine.
• Provides a clean-cut outcome: Thanks to the Electoral College, presidential elections usually come to a clear and undisputed end. There is no need for wildly expensive nationwide vote recounts. If a state has significant voting irregularities, that state alone can do a recount. In addition, the fact that a candidate must gain the support of voters in several different geographic regions promotes the national cohesion needed to ensure a peaceful transfer of power.
• Makes campaigns less costly: Candidates rarely spend much time—or money—campaigning in states that traditionally vote for their party’s candidates. For example, Democrats rarely campaign in liberal-leaning California, just as Republicans tend to skip the more conservative Texas. Abolishing the Electoral College could make America’s many campaign financing problems even worse.   

Disadvantages of the Electoral College  

• Can override the popular vote: In five presidential elections so far—1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016—a candidate lost the nationwide popular vote but was elected president by winning the Electoral College vote. This potential to override the “will of the majority” is often cited as the main reason to abolish the Electoral College.
• Gives the swing states too much power: The needs and issues of voters in the 14 swing states —those that have historically voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates—get a higher level of consideration than voters in other states. The candidates rarely visit the predictable non-swing states, like Texas or California. Voters in the non-swing states will see fewer campaign ads and be polled for their opinions less often voters in the swing states. As a result, the swing states, which may not necessarily represent the entire nation, hold too much electoral power.
• Makes people feel their vote doesn’t matter: Under the Electoral College system, while it counts, not every vote “matters.” For example, a Democrat’s vote in liberal-leaning California has far less effect on the election’s final outcome that it would in one of the less predictable swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. The resulting lack of interest in non-swing states contributes to America’s traditionally low voter turnout rate .

The Bottom Line

Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment , a lengthy and often unsuccessful process. However, there are proposals to “reform” the Electoral College without abolishing it. One such movement, the National Popular Vote plan would ensure that the winner of the popular vote would also win at least enough Electoral College votes to be elected president. Another movement is attempting to convince states to split their electoral vote based on the percentage of the state’s popular vote for each candidate. Eliminating the winner-take-all requirement of the Electoral College at the state level would lessen the tendency for the swing states to dominate the electoral process.

The Popular Vote Plan Alternative

As an alternative to the long and unlikely method amending the Constitution, critics of the Electoral College are now perusing the National Popular Vote plan designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in inaugurated president.

Based on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution granting the states the exclusive power to control how their electoral votes are awarded, the National Popular Vote plan requires the legislature of each participating state to enact a bill agreeing that the state will award all of its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that specific state.

The National Popular Vote would go into effect when states controlling 270—a simple majority—of the total 538 electoral votes. As of July 2020, a National Popular Vote bill has been signed into law in 16 states controlling a total of 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states, 8 medium-sized states, 3 big states (California, Illinois, and New York), and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote plan will take effect when enacted by states controlling an additional 74 electoral votes.  

Sources and Further Reference

• “From Bullets to Ballots: The Election of 1800 and the First Peaceful Transfer of Political Power.” TeachingAmericanHistory.org , https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/zvesper/chapter1/.
• Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers: No. 68 (The Mode of Electing the President).” congress.gov , Mar. 14, 1788, https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68.
• Meko, Tim. “How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states.” Washington Post (Nov. 11, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/.
• The National Popular Vote Plan
• How the US Electoral College System Works
• Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
• What Happens if There Is a Tie in the Electoral College?
• Presidents Elected Without Winning the Popular Vote
• How Electoral Votes Are Awarded
• 12th Amendment: Fixing the Electoral College
• Who Invented the Electoral College?
• How many Electors does each State have?
• 2000 Presidential Election of George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
• How Many Electoral Votes Does a Candidate Need to Win?
• Swing States in the Presidential Election
• Learn How Many Total Electoral Votes There Are
• What Happens If the Presidential Election Is a Tie
• Purposes and Effects of the Electoral College
• Presidential Elections: ESL Lesson

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Electoral College

By: History.com Editors

Updated: November 4, 2020 | Original: January 12, 2010

When Americans vote for President and Vice President of the United States, they are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the Electoral College. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three (District of Columbia) to 55 (California), for a total of 538. To be elected President of the United States, a candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes.

How the Electoral College Works 

Aside from Members of Congress and people holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution , anyone may serve as an elector.

In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention or by the party-state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice-presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice-presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected. This is known as the winner take all system, or general ticket system.

Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the Electoral College ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and certified by a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. If no candidate receives a majority, then the President is elected by the House of Representatives and the Vice President is elected by the Senate , a process known as contingent election.

The Electoral College in the U.S. Constitution

The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered several methods of electing the President, including selection by Congress, by the governors of the states, by the state legislatures, by a special group of Members of Congress chosen by lot and by direct popular election. Late in the convention, the matter was referred to the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, which devised the Electoral College system in its original form. This plan, which met with widespread approval by the delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes.

The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its membership in the Senate (two to each state, the “senatorial” electors) and its delegation in the House of Representatives (currently ranging from one to 52 Members). The electors are chosen by the states “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” (U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1).

Qualifications for the office are broad: the only people prohibited from serving as electors are Senators, Representatives and people “holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.”

In order to forestall partisan intrigue and manipulation, the electors assemble in their respective states and cast their ballots as state units, rather than meet at a central location. At least one of the candidates for whom the electors vote must be an inhabitant of another state. A majority of electoral votes is necessary to elect, a requirement intended to insure broad acceptance of a winning candidate, while election by the House was provided as a default method in the event of Electoral College deadlock. Finally, Congress was empowered to set nationwide dates for choice and meeting of electors.

All the foregoing structural elements of the Electoral College system remain in effect currently. The original method of electing the President and Vice President, however, proved unworkable and was replaced by the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. Under the original system, each elector cast two votes for President (for different candidates), and no vote for Vice President. The votes were counted and the candidate receiving the most votes, provided it was a majority of the number of electors, was elected President, and the runner-up became Vice President. The 12th Amendment replaced this system with separate ballots for President and Vice President, with electors casting a single vote for each office.

The Electoral College Today

Notwithstanding the founders’ efforts, the Electoral College system almost never functioned as they intended, but, as with so many constitutional provisions, the document prescribed only the system’s basic elements, leaving ample room for development. As the republic evolved, so did the Electoral College system, and, by the late 19th century, the following range of constitutional, legal and political elements were in place on both a state and federal level:

Allocation of Electors and Electoral Votes

The Constitution gives each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate membership (two for each state) and House of Representatives delegation (currently ranging from one to 55, depending on population). The 23rd Amendment provides an additional three electors to the District of Columbia. The number of electoral votes per state thus currently ranges from three (for seven states and D.C.) to 55 for California , the most populous state.

The total number of electors each state gets are adjusted following each decennial census in a process called reapportionment, which reallocates the number of Members of the House of Representatives to reflect changing rates of population growth (or decline) among the states. Thus, a state may gain or lose electors following reapportionment, but it always retains its two “senatorial” electors, and at least one more reflecting its House delegation. Popular Election of Electors

Popular Election of Electors

Today, all presidential electors are chosen by voters, but in the early republic, more than half the states chose electors in their legislatures, thus eliminating any direct involvement by the voting public in the election. This practice changed rapidly after the turn of the nineteenth century, however, as the right to vote was extended to an ever-wider segment of the population. As the electorate continued to expand, so did the number of persons able to vote for presidential electors: Its present limit is all eligible citizens age 18 or older. The tradition that the voters choose the presidential electors thus became an early and permanent feature of the Electoral College system, and, while it should be noted that states still theoretically retain the constitutional right to choose some other method, this is extremely unlikely. 

The existence of the presidential electors and the duties of the Electoral College are so little noted in contemporary society that most American voters believe that they are voting directly for a President and Vice President on Election Day. Although candidates for elector may be well-known persons, such as governors, state legislators or other state and local officials, they generally do not receive public recognition as electors. In fact, in most states, the names of individual electors do not appear anywhere on the ballot; instead, only those of the various candidates for President and Vice President appear, usually prefaced by the words “electors for.” Moreover, electoral votes are commonly referred to as having “been awarded” to the winning candidate, as if no human beings were involved in the process.

The Electors: Ratifying the Voter’s Choice

Presidential electors in contemporary elections are expected, and in many cases pledged, to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them. While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors, weighing the merits of competing presidential candidates, they have been regarded as agents of the public will since the first decade under the Constitution. They are expected to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of the party that nominated them. 

Notwithstanding this expectation, individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged. They are known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors. In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20th century, there was one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election.

How the Electoral College Works in Each State 

Nomination of elector-candidates is another of the many aspects of this system left to state and political party preferences. Most states prescribe one of two methods: 34 states require that candidates for the office of presidential elector be nominated by state party conventions, while a further ten mandate nomination by the state party’s central committee. The remaining states use a variety of methods, including nomination by the governor (on the recommendation of party committees), by primary election, and by the party’s presidential nominee.

Joint Tickets: One Vote for President and Vice President

General election ballots, which are regulated by state election laws and authorities, offer voters joint candidacies for President and Vice President for each political party or other groups. Thus, voters cast a single vote for electors pledged to the joint ticket of the party they represent. They cannot effectively vote for a president from one party and a vice president from another unless their state provides for write-in votes.

General Election Day

Elections for all federal elected officials are held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years and presidential elections are held in every year divisible by four. Congress selected this day in 1845; previously, states held elections on different days between September and November, a practice that sometimes led to multiple voting across state lines and other fraudulent practices. By tradition, November was chosen because the harvest was in and farmers were able to take the time needed to vote. Tuesday was selected because it gave a full day’s travel between Sunday, which was widely observed as a strict day of rest, and Election Day. Travel was also easier throughout the north during November, before winter had set in.

The Electors Convene

The 12th Amendment requires electors to meet “in their respective states…” This provision was intended to deter manipulation of the election by having the state electoral colleges meet simultaneously, but keeping them separate. Congress sets the date on which the electors meet, currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The electors almost always meet in the state capital, usually in the capitol building or state house itself. They vote “by ballot” separately for President and Vice President (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). The results are then endorsed, and copies are sent to the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate); the secretary of state of their state; the Archivist of the United States; and the judge of the federal district court of the district in which the electors met. Having performed their constitutional duty, the electors adjourn, and the Electoral College ceases to exist until the next presidential election.

Congress Counts and Certifies the Vote

The final step in the presidential election process (aside from the presidential inaugural on January 20) is the counting and certification of the electoral votes by Congress. The House of Representatives and Senate meet in joint session in the House chamber on January 6 of the year following the presidential election at 1:00 pm. The Vice President, who presides in his capacity as President of the Senate, opens the electoral vote certificates from each state in alphabetical order. He then passes the certificates to four tellers (vote counters), two appointed by each house, who announce the results. The votes are then counted and the results are announced by the Vice President. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is declared the winner by the Vice President, an action that constitutes “a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the States.”

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly about The Electoral College

A history professor shares his insights on the governmental institution that has increasingly become the deciding factor in American presidential races.

The 2020 presidential election is fast approaching, which means it’s the perfect time for a refresher on the governmental institution that has increasingly become the deciding factor in American presidential races: the Electoral College. We asked Chris DeRosa, Ph.D., chair of the Department of History and Anthropology, to share his insights on the institution.

THE PURPOSE

The original plan called for each elector to cast two votes for president. Whoever received a majority of votes from electors became president; the runner-up became vice president.

States can do what they want with their electoral votes, says DeRosa. Most give them to the candidate who wins a state majority. An elector who defies that assignment is called a faithless elector, and the state has the choice whether to tolerate them. “You don’t get them very often because they’re chosen as party loyalists, and we’ve never had faithless electors swing an election,” says DeRosa.

One of the advantages is the end result is clear: “Somebody wins; somebody gets a majority of the electoral votes,” says DeRosa. If presidents were elected purely by popular vote, a candidate could win the presidency with less than 50% of the vote. “If you had more than two parties contending for the presidency, you might have somebody winning with 30% of the votes, and that’s a ticket to an extremist candidate.”

The first problem with the Electoral College is that it gives more weight to voters in small states than those in more populous ones, says DeRosa. Every state gets a minimum of three electoral votes. However, each state’s total allotment is based on its representation in the Senate (always two people) and the House (varies by population). “So take Washington, D.C., as an example,” says DeRosa. “More people live in D.C. than in Wyoming, the least populous state in the union; but they both get three electoral votes.” (Plus, unlike Wyoming, D.C. gets no voting representation in Congress.)

The biggest problem with the Electoral College is that it encourages vote suppression, says DeRosa. Southern states always had an advantage in the population count, because they got electoral votes appointed on the basis of their slave populations and their white populations. That gave the states extra representation for people they weren’t really representing at all.

After the Civil War, former slaves were counted as “whole” persons, not three-fifths of one, for purposes of electoral vote allotment. But Black voter suppression still took place through Jim Crow laws. This further “inflated the electoral count of people who were not representing all the people in their state,” says DeRosa. “So the Electoral College became a pillar of white supremacy.”

Love it or hate it, the Electoral College is here to stay because changing it would require “constitutional surgery,” says DeRosa. “You would need three-fourths of the states to ratify any change, and too many states that are intent on suppressing votes benefit from the Electoral College.” The downside? “If you never have to appeal to the electorate because you’re successfully suppressing some large part of it, then you have a broken system.”

Teaching & Learning

The electoral college: here to stay.

Renowned expert looks at the history of a constitutional provision—and the prospect for changing it

Constitutional Law expert Sanford Levinson focused on the political implications of the Electoral College at Harvard Law School on October 21. He emphasized that the U.S. Electoral College system is unique among the election processes of major countries, which tend towards popular vote models, and he connected it to what he terms “the Constitution of settlement,” the structural provisions of the Constitution that are never litigated and therefore never discussed.

In response to recent criticism and praise of the Electoral College, Levinson highlighted its benefits and the ways in which it influences electoral outcomes, saying, “It is important to look at the way that any constitution rigs the electoral system, if you use rigging as a metaphor not necessarily for unfairness, but for establishing a basic structure, ‘a rigging’ if one thinks of an old-fashioned ship with masts. It makes a difference how many masts there are, and what sails are up and which are down. Rigging may quite literally be a matter of life and death. One is making choices when one constructs an electoral system, and there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system, any more than there is a perfect political society.”

To support his claim that the Electoral College shapes the outcomes of American presidential contests, Levinson cited the 1968 and 1992 elections, when candidates who garnered less than half of the popular vote reached the Oval Office on the strength of their electoral vote totals.

To support his claim that the Electoral College shapes the outcomes of American presidential contests, Levinson cited the 1968 and 1992 elections, when candidates who garnered less than half of the popular vote reached the Oval Office on the strength of their electoral vote totals. From his perspective, “The most important example in American history of this is 1860 and the election of Abraham Lincoln, who got to the Oval Office with 39.8 percent of the popular vote and a majority of the electoral vote, but his election triggered a war . . . through a fatal mixture of the issue of slavery, which might well have triggered a war sooner or later, but also the electoral system . . . that makes electoral votes and not popular votes key.”

Why, then, maintain a system whose historical justifications, according to Levinson, have long receded? He argued that the Electoral College remains intact because of its relationship to exceptionalism and constitutional structures: the “almost insurmountable hurdles to amendment” embedded in the document comprise another exceptional feature of the American Constitution. An amendment to modify the electoral system would require the approval of a supermajority of states. Small states and battleground states hold disproportionate importance under the Electoral College that a popular vote system would eliminate, and, Levinson explained, are therefore unlikely to support any move to reduce their power.

The Electoral College, a product of American exceptionalism and constitutional structures, continues to influence the outcome of national elections by establishing the rules of the game. Ultimately, Levinson said, under the Electoral College system, “it isn’t voters who decide elections. It’s electors who decide elections, and there is a mixed relationship between popular votes and electoral votes.”

Levinson holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas Law School and is a visiting professor at HLS this semester. His talk was sponsored by Harvard Law School’s Graduate Program.

Related Articles

• The 2016 Election: Issues and answers with David Gergen

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

current events

Lesson of the Day: How Does the Electoral College Work and Why Does It Matter?

In this lesson, students will learn about the Electoral College — how it works in a presidential election and why it was created — and consider whether it needs to be reformed.

By Jeremy Engle and Michael Gonchar

This Lesson of the Day and a related Student Opinion question will prepare students to participate in our live panel discussion about the Electoral College, on Oct. 22 at 1 p.m. Eastern. Learn more here.

Lesson Overview

Featured Article: “ How Does the Electoral College Work and Why Does It Matter? ” by Allyson Waller

“It remains one of the most surprising facts about voting in the United States: While the popular vote elects members of Congress, mayors, governors, state legislators and even more obscure local officials, it does not determine the winner of the presidency , the highest office in the land,” the featured article begins.

In this lesson, you will learn about the Electoral College — how it works, why it was created and why it is receiving so much scrutiny now. In a Going Further activity, you will explore the question of whether the Electoral College should be reformed.

1. What do you know about the Electoral College? What is its purpose? How does it work? Do you have any feelings about it, one way or another?

Look at the interactive diagram in “ The Battleground States Biden and Trump Need to Win 270. ” You can build your own coalition of states to see how either candidate, President Trump or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., might win the 2020 election .

Spend some time moving states into the Biden and Trump circles and then respond to these prompts:

What do you notice?

What do you wonder? What questions does it raise?

What story does the interactive tell? Write a catchy headline that captures its main idea. If your headline makes a claim, tell us what you noticed that supports your claim.

Does this interactive change how you feel about the Electoral College? Why?

Questions for Writing and Discussion

Read the featured article , then answer the following questions:

1. Why does having an Electoral College that determines the winner of a presidential election, rather than a popular vote, lead to “an intense focus on key battleground states,” according to Ms. Waller?

2. How many electoral votes are needed to win? What happens if there is a tie in the Electoral College? How often has it happened in the past, and how was the deadlock broken?

3. What is an elector? How are they chosen and what are their responsibilities? What happens if electors break their pledge to vote for their party’s nominee?

4. How did the Electoral College system evolve? Why did our nation’s founders choose this system over direct popular elections for president?

5. Why do some critics say that the Electoral College overrepresents smaller states like Wyoming compared with more populous states like California and Florida? What does it mean for a state to be winner-take-all?

6. What reforms to the Electoral College are currently being considered? What are some obstacles to possible changes? How likely is reform, according to the article?

Going Further

Option 1: Share your thoughts.

What in the article did you find most surprising, memorable or provocative? Has your opinion about the Electoral College changed at all? If so, how? If not, why not?

What does “democracy” mean to you? Based on what you know now, do you believe the Electoral College is democratic? Why or why not?

The Electoral College has elected a president who did not win the popular vote twice in the past 20 years, in 2000 and 2016. Do you think this means the system is broken? Or is it working the way it is supposed to?

Do you think the United States should get rid of the Electoral College? If so, why and what should replace it? If not, why not?

If you want to join a conversation on the Electoral College with other students, you can comment on our related Student Opinion question .

Option 2: Conduct more research.

Want to find out more about the Electoral College — its origins and evolution, its advantages and disadvantages?

You might start with the The Times’s Electoral College topics page , or these Times articles and essays:

A Case for the Electoral College

The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy

Should the Electoral College Be Eliminated? 15 States Are Trying to Make It Obsolete

The Electoral College’s Real Problem: It’s Biased Toward the Big Battlegrounds

The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy

Actually, the Electoral College Was a Pro-Slavery Ploy

Beyond The Times, you might also look at these resources:

The Electoral College: Top 3 Pros and Cons | Britannica’s ProCon.org

Arguments for the Electoral College | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

What the Electoral College Saves Us From | National Review

National Popular Vote website and video

Option 3: What kinds of reform to the Electoral College should we consider?

In the Opinion video “ How Trump Could Win Again, Even if He Loses, ” Jesse Wegman, a member of The New York Times Editorial Board, argues that the Electoral College is undemocratic and unfair, and proposes that we end the winner-take-all system of awarding state electoral votes.

Watch the video and then respond to the following questions:

How does this video add to your understanding, or change your opinion, of the Electoral College? What is one new thing you learned?

Mr. Wegman argues that there are many myths about the Electoral College. Which do you find most illuminating and significant?

Do you agree with Mr. Wegman’s argument that the Electoral College is undemocratic and unfair? Why, or why not?

Do you support the proposed fix, the National Popular Vote plan? Why? What are possible drawbacks or unintended consequences of this plan?

Join our live webinar on the Electoral College on Oct. 22. Here’s how to register.

Allyson Waller, the author of the featured article, and Jesse Wegman, the author of the Opinion video, are guests on our Oct. 22 live panel for students. After reading the article and watching the video, what questions do you have for Ms. Waller or Mr. Wegman? If you submit a question as a comment on this article, we might use it during the live event.

About Lesson of the Day

• Find all our Lessons of the Day in this column . • Teachers, watch our on-demand webinar to learn how to use this feature in your classroom.

Jeremy Engle joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2018 after spending more than 20 years as a classroom humanities and documentary-making teacher, professional developer and curriculum designer working with students and teachers across the country. More about Jeremy Engle

Excerpt from an original publication: Kimberling, William C. (1992). Essays in Elections The Electoral College . Washington: National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, Federal Election Commission.

The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System

Arguments against the electoral college.

• the possibility of electing a minority president
• the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
• the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
• its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Opponents of the Electoral College are disturbed by the possibility of electing a minority president (one without the absolute majority of popular votes). Nor is this concern entirely unfounded since there are three ways in which that could happen.

One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the country were so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained the necessary majority. This occurred, as noted above, in 1824 and was unsuccessfully attempted in 1948 and again in 1968. Should that happen today, there are two possible resolutions: either one candidate could throw his electoral votes to the support of another (before the meeting of the Electors) or else, absent an absolute majority in the Electoral College, the U.S. House of Representatives would select the president in accordance with the 12 th Amendment. Either way, though, the person taking office would not have obtained the absolute majority of the popular vote. Yet it is unclear how a direct election of the president could resolve such a deep national conflict without introducing a presidential run-off election -- a procedure which would add substantially to the time, cost, and effort already devoted to selecting a president and which might well deepen the political divisions while trying to resolve them.

A second way in which a minority president could take office is if, as in 1888, one candidate's popular support were heavily concentrated in a few States while the other candidate maintained a slim popular lead in enough States to win the needed majority of the Electoral College. While the country has occasionally come close to this sort of outcome, the question here is whether the distribution of a candidate's popular support should be taken into account alongside the relative size of it. This issue was mentioned above and is discussed at greater length below.

A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no one received over 50% of the national popular total. Far from being unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both 1912 and 1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, and Nixon in 1968. The only remarkable thing about those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared. Nor would a direct election have changed those outcomes without a run-off requiring over 50% of the popular vote (an idea which not even proponents of a direct election seem to advocate).

Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors . A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party's candidate for president but nevertheless votes of another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as 1988 when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around. Faithless Electors have never changed the outcome of an election, though, simply because most often their purpose is to make a statement rather than make a difference. That is to say, when the electoral vote outcome is so obviously going to be for one candidate or the other, an occasional Elector casts a vote for some personal favorite knowing full well that it will not make a difference in the result. Still, if the prospect of a faithless Elector is so fearsome as to warrant a Constitutional amendment, then it is possible to solve the problem without abolishing the Electoral College merely by eliminating the individual Electors in favor of a purely mathematical process (since the individual Electors are no longer essential to its operation).

Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout. Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation (and they often cite the South here) so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State. While this argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct other elections (for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State legislators, and a host of local officials) in which these same incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even greater force. It is hard to imagine what counter-incentive would be created by eliminating the Electoral College.

Finally, some opponents of the Electoral College point out, quite correctly, its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will in at least two respects.

First, the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to over-represent people in rural States. This is because the number of Electors for each State is determined by the number of members it has in the House (which more or less reflects the State's population size) plus the number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of the State's population). The result is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdiction of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other States listed.

A second way in which the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular will stems primarily from the winner-take-all mechanism whereby the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes in the State wins all the Electoral votes of that State. One effect of this mechanism is to make it extremely difficult for third party or independent candidates ever to make much of a showing in the Electoral College. If, for example, a third party or independent candidate were to win the support of even as many as 25% of the voters nationwide, he might still end up with no Electoral College votes at all unless he won a plurality of votes in at least one State. And even if he managed to win a few States, his support elsewhere would not be reflected. By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two party system, discourages third party or independent candidates, and thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate.

In response to these arguments, proponents of the Electoral College point out that is was never intended to reflect the national popular will. As for the first issue, that the Electoral College over-represents rural populations, proponents respond that the United State Senate - with two seats per State regardless of its population - over-represents rural populations far more dramatically. But since there have been no serious proposals to abolish the United States Senate on these grounds, why should such an argument be used to abolish the lesser case of the Electoral College? Because the presidency represents the whole country? But so, as an institution, does the United States Senate.

As for the second issue of the Electoral College's role in reinforcing a two party system, proponents, as we shall see, find this to be a positive virtue.

Arguments for the Electoral College

• contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
• enhances the status of minority interests,
• contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
• maintains a federal system of government and representation.

Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country be requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, without such a mechanism, they point out, president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire. This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small price. And the price is that in very close popular elections, it is possible that the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the one elected president - depending (as in 1888) on whether his popularity is concentrated in a few States or whether it is more evenly distributed across the States. Yet this is less of a problem than it seems since, as a practical matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so small that either candidate could govern effectively. Proponents thus believe that the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern. Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups . This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those State with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth. It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.

Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate - and in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party. In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government. A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election. The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be frayed and unstable political system characterized by a multitude of political parties and by more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next. The Electoral College system, in contrast, encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of coherent alternatives. Such an organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the political stability of the nation. Finally, its proponents argue quite correctly that the Electoral College maintains a federal system of government and representation. Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. In the United States, for example, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency (with the number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States. Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College? The fact is, they argue, that the original design of our federal system of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers. State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual State populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and State governments which the Founding Fathers intended and which is reflected in the Electoral college. To do so would fundamentally alter the nature of our government and might well bring about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and are not necessarily shared by the Federal Election Commission or any division thereof or the Jackson County Board of Election Commissioners.

A Selected Bibliography On the Electoral College Highly Recommended

Berns, Walter (ed.) After the People Vote : Steps in Choosing the President . Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1983. Bickel, Alexander M. Reform and Continuity . New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (2 nd ed). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1985.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (Ed.) History of Presidential Elections 1789-1968. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971.

Other Sources

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Proposals for Revision of the Electoral College System . Washington: 1969.

Best, Judith. The Case Against the Direct Election of the President . Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1975. Longley, Lawrence D. The Politics of Electoral College Reform . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Pierce, Neal R. and Longley, Lawrence D. The People's President: The Electoral College in American History and the Direct-Vote Alternative . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Sayre, Wallace Stanley, Voting for President . Washington: Brookings Institution, c1970. Zeidenstein, Harvey G. Direct Election of the President . Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1973.

Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons

Introduction.

The Electoral College is a group of representatives derived from each state and the District of Columbia, whose major role is to elect the president and the vice president of the United States of America. The College is established by the constitution of the United States, and it has been a critical part of America’s political system for decades. The candidate who gets the majority of the electoral votes is given authority to lead the country after the outcome of an election is certified by Congress. The College has been a hot topic for discussion that has attracted the attention of two different schools of thought. The first group comprises critics who oppose the system, and who have made several calls for either reforms or abolition. The second group is comprised of opponents who support the system and who have rejected calls for its abolishment. Both sides have compelling arguments that support their different political ideologies.

Pros of the Electoral College

The Electoral College has been in operation for more than two hundred years. Since its adoption as part of the US political system, several elections have been conducted and it has played a key role in facilitating the democratic appointment of a president without the influence of population numbers in different regions (Connors 13). The pros of the system include protecting the interests of the minority, facilitating a two-party system, directing more power to the states, and promoting the distribution of popular support.

Protecting Minority Interests

In contemporary America, the population of urban areas is higher compared to that of rural areas. Therefore, there is an uneven representation because of the differences in population density. Some states have low populations and a high number of rural metropolitans. The people in these areas mainly include farmers whose interests are not as valued as those of the middle class in cities are (Reed 64). In that regard, the Electoral College protects their interests because the president and the vice president are not elected by a popular vote (Houser 18). The system enhances political cohesiveness because it compels politicians to campaign in all areas of the country (Connors 17). If the top positions were filled through a popular vote, then candidates would focus their campaigns on highly populated areas. The need to acquire votes from multiple regions necessitates the creation of a campaign platform that has a national focus and appeal (Levine 53). Without the college, people in densely populated areas would be marginalized due to poor presentation.

Facilitating a Two-Party System

The US has two predominant political parties, namely the Democratic and the Republican Party. The political system has been widely criticized by historians and political scientists. However, research has shown that the structure creates more stability in the nation because issues of national concern are usually generalized and not specific (Houser 19). The system enhances the cohesiveness of the country because a candidate’s support must be distributed throughout the country for them to be elected president (Reed 75). In that regard, presidential candidates increase their chances of winning by forming coalitions of states and regions. This unifying mechanism is beneficial to national cohesiveness. Moreover, the two-party system absorbs third movements that have been historically shown to propagate radical views (Connors 24). The assimilation encourages the proliferation of two pragmatic political parties that focus on public opinion rather than extremist views that are characteristic of smaller parties.

Directing More Power to the States

The political system directs more power and control to the states because of the power to select representatives to the Electoral College. These delegates participate in the election of the president and represent the interests of all states regardless of their population (Levine 54). In that regard, the system maintains and enhances the success of a federal system of government and representation (Houser 23). The states have important political powers that allow them to address the interests of the citizens both in rural and urban metropolitans. For example, each state participates in the political decisions of the nation through its representatives in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Electoral College (Houser 29). Proponents of the system argue that abolishing the Electoral College would necessitate the abolishment of the Senate and the House of Representatives because they are comprised of individuals who represent all the jurisdictions of the US.

Promoting a Distribution of Popular Support

According to the structure of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must receive support from all parts of the nation to win an election. A candidate’s popularity must be distributed nationally because electors are representatives of all the states (Levine 62). This system promotes political cohesiveness because people from different regions and states must come together to provide support to a certain candidate so that they can have a majority of the electoral votes (Medvic 42). This structure eradicates the probability that a candidate might spend their campaign resources on highly populated regions (Levine 64). Some states are considered swing votes. However, a candidate must receive support from all the regions of the country to win. No single region has the necessary number of electoral votes needed for a presidential candidate to win. A candidate who is popular in a certain region must appeal to voters in other regions to receive the necessary majority for victory.

Cons of the Electoral College

Opponents of the Electoral College have criticized its effectiveness in fostering democracy and national cohesiveness, and have argued that it should either be reformed or abolished. They have presented several reasons that support their argument that the system does not foster democracy, even though its proponents claim it does. The cons of the Electoral College include the possibility of electing a minority president, a failure to reflect the will of the nation, the uneven distribution of power to certain states, and the depression of voter turnout.

The Election of a Minority President

The major disadvantage of the Electoral College system is the probability of the election of a minority president. There is a risk of electing a president who does not have the majority of popular votes (Dufour 8). This occurrence could happen in three main ways. First, if more than two candidates vied for the presidential seat and shared the votes, there is a possibility that none of them would garner the necessary majority. This would happen if the people were so divided that the candidates shared the votes. In 1824, 1948, and 1968 the situation was witnessed (Medvic 63). Second, a minority presidential candidate could win if one of the candidates garnered the most votes in a few states while the other got enough votes to win the necessary majority of the Electoral College (Dufour 10). Third, an independent candidate could alter the numbers such that none of the two top candidates gets over 50% of the votes cast (Levine 78). Smaller states could have a larger percentage of votes because compared to their populations, thus compromising the integrity of the election about the will of the majority.

The Failure to Reflect the People’s Will

The Electoral College system fails to reflect the collective will of Americans in two ways. First, there is an over-representation of people in rural metropolitans because of the uneven distribution of votes based on population. Electors that represent each state in the College are determined by the number of representatives in the House and the Senate (Levine 49). In that regard, votes in different states carry different weights. Second, the system supports a winner-take-all approach as the candidate takes all the Electoral votes in the states they win the popular vote (Dufour 15). This makes it harder for independent candidates and third-party candidates to have any significant political influence in the Electoral College. For example, if an independent candidate received the support of 30% of the votes, he would still not qualify for any Electoral College votes (Levine 72). Therefore, the system discourages the participation of independent and third-party candidates, and so, it denies the electorate the opportunity to choose from a wide variety of candidates.

The Uneven Distribution of Power

Opponents of the Electoral College system argue that it gives too much power to smaller and swing states. This argument can be explained by comparing the states of California and Wyoming. California has 55 Electoral College votes, while Wyoming has three. Consequently, each Californian vote represents 705,454 citizens while a single vote in Wyoming represents 191,717 citizens. In that regard, there is an uneven distribution of power since one vote is not equivalent to one person (Dufour 19). Voters in less populous states have more power than voters in highly populated states have. The major political parties aim to win the support of voters in certain states to emerge victoriously. For instance, the Democratic Party aims to win the votes in California while the Republican Party aims to win the votes in Indiana (Klepeis 11). The concentration of electoral votes in certain states compels presidential candidates to focus their campaign efforts in specific states that have higher political influence. In 2016, a report by PBS NewsHour revealed that presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had concentrated their campaigns in 11 major states, among them Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina (Ross 84). Some states have fixed voting patterns: Minnesota is largely Republican and Utah votes for the Democrat (Levine 83).

The Depression of Voter Turnout

The structure of the Electoral College discourages some voters from participating in elections because of the feeling that their preferred candidate might lose the election. For example, in the 2016 election, Hilary Clinton (the Democrat candidate) had a 15-to-20-point lead over Donald Trump (the Republican candidate) for a long period as shown by the results of the polls (Ross 91). However, the outcome showed a big difference with Donald Trump in the lead. Such an outcome could discourage some people from voting because of the poll’s indication that a win for their candidate of choice was inevitable as indicated by the polls. Another reason why the system depresses voter turnout is the effect of swing states. Some states are considered more important than others are because they are highly populated (Klepeis 14). For instance, California and New York are swing states (Ross 92). Many voters feel like these states are the sources of votes that count. Therefore, they fail to vote based on the assumption that their votes do not count.

The Electoral College has been part of the United State’s political system for more than 200 years. During that period, the system has been discussed and debated from both positive and negative perspectives. Opponents argue that it promotes inequality and it should be abolished. On the other hand, proponents argue that it enhances cohesiveness and political stability. From the foregoing discussion, it can be deduced that the Electoral College does not reflect the nation’s popular will due to the uneven distribution of votes in the Electoral College for each state. Moreover, presidential candidates pay more attention to swing states that have more electoral votes. The system favors poor rural regions over populous urban metropolitans.

The main goal of developing the system was to solve the problem of population disparity in the country. Since its creation, the population of the US has changed immensely. Moreover, the distribution of people in different states and regions has changed. Therefore, the system is ineffective in contemporary America. The system promotes the distribution of popular support. However, candidates pay more attention to states that might “swing” votes in their favor. They focus on states that include Ohio, California, New York, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia. The importance of minor parties and representation is low because the Electoral College system encourages a two-party political structure. Therefore, the system should be abolished to create a more democratic the United States of America.

Works Cited

Connors, Kathleen. What is the Electoral College? Gareth Stevens Publishing LLLP, 2017.

Dufour, Fritz. Is the US Electoral College A Polite Fiction that Should Be Abolished:  The Harbinger Signs vs. The Perennial Head in the Sand Policy . Fritz Dufour, 2017.

Houser, Grace. Understanding U.S. Elections and the Electoral College . The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc, 2017.

Klepeis, Alicia. Understanding the Electoral College . The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc, 2017.

Levine, Herbert. What If the American Political System were Different ? Routledge, 2015.

Medvic, Stephen. Campaigns and Elections: Players and Processes . 2nd ed., Routledge, 2013.

Reed, Melody. Voting in America: Are we voting in Vain? Booktango, 2013.

Ross, Tara. The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founder’s Plan Saves  Our Country from Mob Rule . Simon and Schuster, 2017.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, December 24). Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/

"Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." StudyCorgi , 24 Dec. 2020, studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons'. 24 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." December 24, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." December 24, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons." December 24, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/electoral-college-and-its-pros-and-cons/.

This paper, “Electoral College and Its Pros and Cons”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: December 24, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Electoral College Pros and Cons: Analyzing the Strengths and Weaknesses of the U.S. Electoral System

The U.S. electoral system is a complex framework designed to determine the President of the United States. At the heart of this system lies the Electoral College, a process subject to intense debate and scrutiny. Therefore, it is important that we explore the pros and cons of the Electoral College system and provide a balanced analysis of its advantages and disadvantages.

By examining the historical context, the role of small and large states, the impact of swing states, and proposed alternatives, we aim to understand this controversial aspect of the U.S. democratic process comprehensively.

I. Understanding the Electoral College System

Before delving into the pros and cons, let's first clearly understand the system. The United States follows a unique presidential voting system, where citizens do not directly elect the President. Instead, they vote for electors who then vote for the President.

A. Constitutional Framework and Electoral Votes Allocation

The College is rooted in the constitutional framework of the United States. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for electing the President through the College. The number of senators and representatives from each state determines the number of electors. Each state has a minimum of three electors, including two senators and at least one representative, ensuring that even the smallest states have some representation in the presidential election process.

B. Analysis of Voting Methods: Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

The Electoral College system differs from a majority vote system, where the candidate with the most individual votes nationwide wins the presidency. Proponents of the College argue that it promotes political representation and prevents large states from dominating elections, while opponents claim it undermines the principle of one person, one vote. Supporters of the College argue that it ensures that candidates must appeal to a broad range of states and regions to win the presidency.

They contend that a majority vote system could lead to candidates focusing solely on densely populated urban areas and neglecting the interests and concerns of rural and less populated areas. They believe that the College balances the interests of small and large states, preserving the principles of federalism.

Opponents of the College argue that it can lead to undemocratic results. They highlight instances where a candidate who wins the majority vote nationwide may not secure the presidency if they fail to win the majority of votes. This discrepancy between the popular and electoral votes has raised concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the system.

II. The Merits of the Electoral College

Supporters of the system emphasize the following advantages that make it an essential component of the democratic process:

A. Balancing Small and Large States

The College ensures that candidates must consider the needs of all states, regardless of their size or population. Critics argue that a majority vote system would disproportionately favor densely populated states, neglecting the interests and concerns of smaller states. By requiring candidates to build coalitions across different regions, the College promotes a more inclusive and representative democracy.

Small states, with their fewer votes, can significantly impact the outcome of a presidential election. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won the College despite losing the majority vote.

This outcome was mainly due to his success in winning marginal states with smaller populations, like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Critics argue that this highlights the disproportionate influence of mini-states and the potential for undemocratic outcomes.

B. Encouraging Stable Presidential Elections

The system typically provides a clear and decisive outcome in presidential polls. This outcome encourages stability and certainty, preventing prolonged and potentially contentious recounts.

It also reduces the risk of post-election legal disputes, ensuring a smooth transition of power. The College's winner-takes-all approach in most states contributes to this stability, as it allows for a clear determination of the winning candidate.

Critics argue that the stability provided by the College can come at the cost of undermining the principle of one person, one vote. They point out that in a majority vote system, every individual vote would carry equal weight, eliminating the possibility of some votes being more influential.

C. Protection against Majority Tyranny

The system prevents concentrated power in highly populated areas and encourages candidates to seek broad support across different regions. The College discourages candidates from focusing solely on densely populated urban areas by requiring candidates to win a majority of votes. This aspect is crucial for preserving the interests of rural and less populated areas, ensuring that more densely populated regions do not overshadow their voices.

During the Constitutional Convention, the framers were concerned about the potential for tyranny of the majority. They aimed to create a system that would protect the rights and interests of all citizens, including those in less populated areas. The College, with its allocation of electors based on the number of representatives and senators from each state, was seen as a solution to this concern.

Ever thought about running for office?

III. Criticisms of the Electoral College

Critics of the system argue that it has significant drawbacks that undermine the principles of a democratic election process. Here are some of the main criticisms against the College:

A. Undemocratic Outcomes

Due to the winner-takes-all nature of the votes allocation in most states, a candidate can win the presidency without winning the majority vote. It occurred in several presidential elections, leading to calls for revamping and reevaluating the system's democratic legitimacy.

Critics argue that the College can lead to a discrepancy between the majority vote and the electoral outcome, potentially undermining the principle of "one person, one vote." They contend that a candidate who loses the majority vote but wins the electoral vote can assume the presidency without having the majority support of the electorate.

For example, in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore won the majority vote but narrowly lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush. This outcome led to calls for restructuring and raised questions about the accuracy and representativeness of the system.

B. Disproportionate Influence of Swing States

While pivotal states receive increased attention during presidential campaigns, this focus can lead to the disproportionate influence of a small number of states. Candidates may prioritize the concerns of swing states at the expense of those in non-competitive states, potentially neglecting significant segments of the population.

Critics argue that contested states have an outsized role in determining the outcome of presidential elections, while the interests and concerns of non-swing states are marginalized. They contend that the system can result in candidates disproportionately focusing on a handful of states, leading to a lack of attention and representation for voters in non-competitive states.

C. Lack of Direct Popular Vote Representation

Critics argue that a majority vote system would provide a more accurate representation of voters' preferences and eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency despite losing the majority vote.

Proponents of a direct majority vote argue that every vote should have equal weight and that the President should be elected based on the national majority vote. They believe that this would ensure a more democratic process and enhance the legitimacy of the presidency by aligning the outcome with the overall will of the electorate.

D. Disproportionate Influence of Small States

While proponents argue that the College ensures the representation of mini-states, critics claim that it gives them disproportionate influence. The allocation of votes can lead to situations where a smaller state has a greater weight per capita than a larger state. This discrepancy raises questions about the fairness and equality of the system.

In the distribution of votes, each state is allocated at least three electoral votes, regardless of its population. This allocation ensures that even the smallest states have some influence on the outcome of the election. However, this can lead to situations where a small state has a greater per capita influence than a larger state, undermining the principle of equal representation.

IV. Proposed Alternatives and Reform

A. national popular vote interstate compact.

Under this proposal, states agree to allocate their electoral votes to the national majority vote winner, regardless of the outcome in their individual state. The compact would only take effect once states representing a majority of the votes join, ensuring that the majority vote winner becomes the President.

The NPVIC is designed to bypass the need for a constitutional amendment by leveraging the authority of individual states to determine how their electors get allocated. Advocates argue that this approach would ensure that the President gets elected by a majority of the national majority vote while preserving the existing constitutional framework.

B. Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes

This system would reflect voter preferences more accurately and reduce the potential for undemocratic outcomes. In this approach, instead of the winner-takes-all system, each state would allocate its votes proportionally based on each candidate's share of the majority vote.

It would provide a more nuanced representation of voter preferences and prevent a candidate from receiving all of a state's electoral votes, even if they only won a slim majority.

C. Direct Popular Vote

Advocates for a direct majority vote argue that the President should be elected solely based on the national majority vote, eliminating the need for the College. They say this system would ensure a more democratic process and enhance the presidency's legitimacy. In a direct majority vote system, every vote would carry equal weight, and the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide would become the President.

This approach would eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency without winning the majority vote, ensuring that a majority elects the President.

V. Historical Context and Statistical Analysis

To fully understand the pros and cons of the College, it is essential to examine its historical context and analyze statistical data. Exploring the origins and evolution of the system, as well as studying its impact on past presidential elections, can provide valuable insights into its strengths and weaknesses.

The Founding Fathers conceived the College as a compromise between competing interests during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. At that time, there were concerns about balancing the interests of small and big states and the potential for direct democracy to result in the tyranny of the majority.

The historical context of the College sheds light on the framers' intentions and the challenges they faced in designing a system that would ensure both representation and stability. Understanding the historical debates and compromises can help inform the current College discussions.

Statistical analysis of past presidential polls also provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the system. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the majority vote to Hillary Clinton.

This outcome sparked renewed debates about the fairness and democratic legitimacy of the College.

Also, studying votes' distribution and their impact on electoral outcomes can reveal patterns and trends. Analyzing the voting patterns in marginal states, the influence of demographic factors, and the correlation between the majority vote and the electoral vote can contribute to a deeper understanding of the system.

VI. Electoral College Debate: Perspectives and Expert Opinions

The debate surrounding the system has drawn the attention of scholars, political scientists, and experts in the field. Researchers have provided valuable insights into the advantages and disadvantages of the system, offering differing perspectives on its merits and criticisms.

According to proponents of the College, the system promotes political stability, prevents the domination of large states, and ensures that presidential candidates address the concerns of diverse states and regions. They argue that it is a vital component of the U.S. constitutional framework and helps preserve the principles of federalism and representation.

On the other hand, critics argue that the College can produce undemocratic outcomes, diminish the significance of the majority vote, and result in the disproportionate influence of a few pivotal states. They contend that the system should get restructured or replaced to reflect the will of the people better and enhance the legitimacy of the presidency.

VII. Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Prospects

While ongoing discussions have been about reforming the system, implementing any changes poses significant challenges. Constitutional amendments require the approval of a supermajority in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states, making it a complex and difficult process.

The debate over College revamp extends beyond academic and political circles. Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping the prospects for change. Increased public awareness and engagement in discussions about the merits and criticisms of the College can influence the likelihood of revamp.

The Electoral College system in the United States has both advantages and disadvantages. While it aims to balance the representation of small and big states, provide stability, and focus on swing states, it has faced criticisms for potentially producing undemocratic outcomes and lacking direct majority vote representation.

Proposed alternatives and reforms, like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and direct majority vote, have sparked ongoing debates about the future of the U.S. electoral system. By understanding the merits and criticisms of the College, individuals can engage in informed discussions and contribute to shaping the democratic process for future presidential elections.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Electoral College — The Importance Of The Electoral College

The Importance of The Electoral College

• Categories: Electoral College

About this sample

Words: 468 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 468 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 649 words

3 pages / 1446 words

6 pages / 2506 words

4 pages / 1925 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Electoral College

The Electoral College has long been a subject of debate in the United States. It plays a crucial role in the presidential election process, yet its existence and function have faced criticism over the years. In this essay, we [...]

The Electoral College has been a topic of debate for many years, with critics arguing that it is an outdated and undemocratic system that should be abolished. On the other hand, proponents of the Electoral College argue that it [...]

The Electoral College has long been a topic of debate in the United States, with critics arguing that it is an outdated and unfair system for electing the President. While supporters of the Electoral College argue that it [...]

In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the use of dog whistle politics in electoral campaigns. This strategy involves the use of coded language that appears innocuous on the surface but carries a hidden message [...]

The United States employs the electoral college as its method for selecting the president. This system has its strengths and weaknesses notably encouraging presidential hopefuls to engage with a broad array of states rather than [...]

The Electoral College has been a cornerstone of the American electoral system since the inception of the United States. However, as time has passed, the system has faced growing criticism and calls for reform. This argumentative [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College

Mara Liasson

Then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi preside over a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 to certify the 2020 Electoral College results after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol earlier that day. Erin Schaff/Pool/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi preside over a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 to certify the 2020 Electoral College results after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol earlier that day.

It's hard to make an intellectual argument in favor of the Electoral College. Most people feel that the person who gets the most votes should become president.

After all, that's how we run every other election in this country, says Jesse Wegman, the author of Let the People Pick the President .

"If anything, representative democracy in the 21st century is about political equality. It's about one person, one vote — everybody's vote counting equally," he said. "You're not going to convince a majority of Americans that that's not how you should do it."

Another way the Electoral College is unfair, says Harvard University political scientist Gautam Mukunda, is that each state gets electors based on its representation in the House and Senate, which means small states get extra votes.

"The fact that in presidential elections people in Wyoming have [nearly four] times the power of people in California is antithetical at the most basic level to what we say we stand for as a democracy," he said.

But Brad Smith, who used to be on the Federal Election Commission, disagrees.

Sure, the election may be decided by just a handful of states — swing states that can shift red or blue. But Smith, a Republican, says the battleground is diverse.

"Those states include some of the states with the heaviest minority populations in the United States, some of the states with the fewest minority populations in the United States," he said. "They include states from every region of the country, and that forces candidates to try to go out and have a platform that will appeal to the huge, diverse sections of America — or at least not grossly turn them off."

And Smith points out that for most of American history, the Electoral College amplified the popular vote, rather than contradicting it.

"Our calculus might change if pretty much every single election, you know, the person who won the most popular votes wasn't winning," he said.

The problem is that twice since 2000, the person with the most votes didn't win. Both times — in 2000 and 2016 — it was the Republican candidate who got fewer votes but ended up in the White House.

And even when that doesn't happen, Wegman sees another problem with the Electoral College system.

"In 2020, despite the 7 million-vote victory that Joe Biden won in the popular vote, people overlook the fact that 45,000 votes switch in the three key battleground states, and you're looking at a second term of Donald Trump," he said. "I mean, the fact that you could have the entire outcome of the election ride on 45,000 votes in three random states is, you know, just a huge, glaring vulnerability for any republic."

"Undue" weight of key states

That vulnerability was on full display on Jan. 6, when Trump and the violent insurrectionists pressed Congress to overturn Biden's Electoral College win. Without the Electoral College, it would have been much harder for them to have asked Congress to overturn the will of 7 million voters. Instead, Trump asked Congress to throw out the electoral votes from just a handful of battleground states.

That means the Electoral College puts a magnifying glass on just a few states that could have tremendous control over presidential elections.

"The Electoral College does mean a small number of states have undue weight in the outcome of our elections and that smaller manipulations can have broad national consequences," said Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanded ballot access.

What she means by manipulations are the efforts by Republicans to change election laws in their favor.

"Vote suppression is one way of doing that — subtracting voters from the electorate who you think won't vote for your preferred candidates," she said. "But this new trend of actually taking over the machinery of elections and giving themselves the power to run things or make decisions or count the votes is another way of doing this."

Republican state lawmakers in places like Georgia and Texas have advanced bills that would give new powers to legislatures to fire election officials and overturn elections.

Democrats don't have the votes in the states or in Congress to stop these laws, so Democrats are trying to build public pressure against them. Republicans say their goal is to fight future election fraud. The 2020 election was declared the most secure ever, but Trump continues to push the lie that the election was stolen from him.

Democrats Increasingly Say American Democracy Is Sliding Toward Minority Rule

Why Possibly Changing The Filibuster Brings Threats Of Political 'Nuclear' War

On the other hand, Republicans don't have to convince the public. They have the votes to pass ballot restrictions, and in some cases they have never held public hearings.

"This is the essence of the minority-rule position, right?" Harvard's Mukunda said. "You don't have to convince the public that the system is fair. You just have to convince them that it's not so unfair they should overthrow the system."

And for Republicans, the system, with all its minoritarian features — the Electoral College, the U.S. Senate , the filibuster , partisan gerrymandering — is, at least for now, working in their favor. But maybe it's not good for democracy when one party doesn't have to try to win the most votes in a presidential election.

A warning from Republicans

Smith says this is something fellow Republicans should consider.

"They keep losing the aggregated popular vote," he said. "Republicans aren't getting enough votes, and that's why they're losing most presidential elections. And, you know, they need to think about, how do we appeal to more people?"

In the runup to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, 12 House Republicans issued an extraordinary statement that warned about the demise of the Electoral College.

"Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years," it stated. The signers then implored their colleagues not to vote to reject the electors from battleground states, as Trump was asking them to do.

"Even looking at it from a narrow partisan lens, this process or that objection was potentially imperiling the Electoral College," said Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, one of the Republicans who signed the letter.

And that would be a bad thing for Republicans, because they depend on the Electoral College. As the statement said: "We will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024."

Correction June 10, 2021

An earlier version of this story included a misspoken quote that said people in Wyoming have 44 times the power of people in California in presidential elections. In fact, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power of people in California.