Centuries ago, the Founding Fathers established the U.S. Constitution as the basis of this nation’s government. Today, with President-elect Donald Trump awaiting inauguration, many are questioning their inclusion of one aspect, in particular: the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is the process through which the President of the United States is elected. It is composed of 538 electors who, once the popular election takes place, meet in each state to formally appoint the president based on the number of states won by each candidate. It was originally designed as both a means of giving small states equal say in the electoral process and a check that prevents populists and unfit candidates from seizing the presidency. However, it is evident from this election that the Electoral College has not fulfilled its purpose. As such, the United States should abolish the Electoral College and replace it with an electoral system that equally represents all Americans and can truly shape the presidency, instead of merely being a formality.
First and foremost, this nation has a duty to represent all voters equally, and the Electoral College simply does not. While it was originally meant to provide small states with more influence in the electoral process, it now awards them a disproportionate number of electoral votes. Thus, votes cast in small states carry far more weight than those filed in large states. For example, according to FairVote.org, “Each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas because Wyoming has three electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens and Texas has thirty-two electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million.” This imbalance of electoral power grants voters in Wyoming far more sway in the political process than voters in Texas. If the Electoral College were abolished and replaced by a popular election, votes in all fifty states would count equally, as they should be.
Additionally, because electors from each state are bound to vote for the candidate who won that state’s popular election, voters in traditionally blue or red states sometimes feel as if their votes are not important. The Electoral College discourages voter turnout and makes many votes in states with clear majority parties insignificant to the outcome of the election. For instance, a Democrat in Kentucky may feel like there is no point in voting because Republican presidential candidates are practically guaranteed to win in a state like Kentucky. Similarly, a Republican in Maryland may not vote in any local elections simply because she knows her single vote will not influence the presidential election in her state, one that typically votes Democratic. Furthermore, voters in swing states have far more electoral influence because their votes could, in fact, sway the statewide popular vote and, thus, the electoral vote. If the Electoral College were abolished, voter turnout would likely increase (from the current 55-60%) because the votes of all Americans would directly impact who becomes president.
Likewise, the Founding Fathers constructed the Electoral College so that electors could choose who they thought would be the best president, in case an unfit candidate were to ever win the popular vote. However, because 29 out of 50 states (and the District of Columbia) currently bind their electors to whichever candidate wins the statewide popular vote, the Electoral College has lost most of its former ability to override the popular will, even if it's not truly what the majority of voters want. Rather, it has become nothing more than a formality in the electoral process.
Throughout American history, there have been a number of unqualified presidential candidates, yet none have been as successful as the one set to inherit the White House this month. This election is a perfect illustration of why the Electoral College can, in no way, prevent an anti-government populist like Donald Trump from assuming the most powerful office in the world. Throughout his campaign, Trump was able to appeal to the masses, take advantage of the weak electoral system, and in the end, win the presidency, despite his opponent securing nearly three million more votes. If the Electoral College did not exist, our next president would be qualified and experienced, as opposed to someone who seems to be spending more time on Twitter than attending intelligence briefings. As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 68, the Electoral College was established to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications," yet it has clearly failed us in this respect.
If we were, in fact, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we would abolish the Electoral College and restore the concept of “one person, one vote.” Regardless of the Founders’ intentions, it is clear that the original purpose of the Electoral College has been muddled to a point of inefficacy. I am not denying Donald Trump's right to take office; I am simply noting that the man who, for the past year, claimed that the entire system was rigged against him came to win the presidency through the most rigged aspect of the election.
