Since the birth of the United States of America we’ve had an Electoral College, representing the populous and states, to elect the next president. Each state has a certain amount of College members based on the population of that state and these members are supposed to represent the people in choosing the next president. However, this system is outdated, problematic and raises a number of serious issues.
One reason the Electoral College was instituted was that we are the United STATES of America. Each American citizen pledges allegiance to two flags, the national flag and their state flag. The Founding Fathers established the power of statehood by having a system in which state representatives of Congress and House vote on behalf of the citizens. The state’s populace is one entity, one unified population, with a single body consisting of several people choosing a candidate. However, this “state loyalty” is no longer as relevant as it once was; according to the US Census Bureau millions of people commute daily to other states (in some states it's as much as 18% of workers) and hundred of thousands more attend schools in other states (universities are noticing more and more out-of-state students). The Boston Globe reported that 77% of Americans couldn’t name one their senators. If we don’t care as much about our states and don’t even know who the people representing us are, is it really that good a system?
The primary reason that the Electoral College was necessary because of an ignorant populace. There was fear that citizens, who were mostly uneducated, would not making uninformed choices. There was no media like today for people in one part of the country to even know who the candidates from the other side were, let alone be informed of their policies. Thus, by having those uninformed Americans appoint knowledgeable representatives for themselves, the president is chosen by educated agents of the people. In simpler terms: the people have an educated voice to vote on their behalf.
Nowadays we live in a very different world. We now have what is called ‘mass media’ and any news story is known countrywide within minutes. Americans, while not all college educated, are so much more informed, in the sense that everyone has easy access to information about each candidate. We no longer need to worry about an ignorant America choosing the next president.
One repercussion of the Electoral College deciding the next President means that the chosen candidate may not be who the majority of the American public voted for. Only about half of the states have laws insisting that the electoral college members to the state’s popular vote, but in the other half of the states College members can vote as they desire. It’s feasible for one candidate to win the national popular vote but for the other to win the Electoral vote and become president. It happened this year (Clinton won the popular vote but Trump won the Electoral College) and its happened 4 times in the past (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000). This means that around 7 percent of our 56 presidential elections went to the candidate who received less votes in the popular election. Vox.com claims that it’s becoming increasingly likely for future elections to have a similar scenario because of changes in voter demographics. A system in which the candidate prefered less by the American public can win the presidency doesn’t represent the true majority opinion of the people who the President governs and so goes against the very spirit of democracy our country is founded upon.
Another issue with the Electoral College as opposed to a simple popular vote is that it creates a situation in which many Americans’ votes do not count. A Republican vote in New York, California, or other state which always goes blue (Democratic) is practically worthless. Likewise, a Democratic vote is irrelevant in Montana or Utah, which go red (Republican) every election. It does not matter if a Democrat wins in California by even 1 million, 100 or even one vote, the Democratic candidate wins 55 Electoral College votes. This means that there are hundred of thousands, if not millions of people, whose votes do not count! What’s the point of voting in these states if your vote doesn’t affect anything? A vote in a swing state such as Pennsylvania or Florida is worth more than a vote in a state that consistently goes to a specific party each year. This is what Vox.com calls “swing state privilege.” It's unfair and undemocratic for the votes of two fellow citizens to be worth different amounts from each other.
There is also the problem of misrepresented states. Consider Wyoming with a population of only approximately 584,153 (2014 census) and three Electoral College seats. In Wyoming, each College member represents roughly 194,718 people. Now consider California, with a population of nearly 38.8 million and 55 electoral college members. In California, each College member represents around 705,454 people. This means that in California each College member is representing around three times as many people as the members from Wyoming. If the ratio of population to College member in Wyoming were to be applied to California, the Golden State would have over 199 seats. Additionally if the College member per population ratio of California would be applied to Wyoming, the Cowboy State would have less than one Electoral College seat. Thus, states that have smaller populations are overrepresented and/or the larger states are underrepresented. This is a biased system which favors smaller, less populated, rural states, which almost always go red.
Another concern of the Electoral College is that there are hundreds of possibilities for a 269-269 tie within the 538 Electoral College. Given this year's battleground states there were 97 possibilities for a tie, according to 270towin.com. When such a tie happens (it has happened happened twice so far- in 1800 and in 1824) the Senate chooses the Vice President and the House of Representatives chooses the next president. In such a scenario each state gets a single vote in the House. Therefore states with tiny populations have an equal vote compared to states with bigger populations. This is unfair and heavily favors the smaller states. Firstly, if the House votes for the candidate from one party and the Senate votes for the vice presidential candidate from the other party, America would have a President and Vice President from different parties. While the Vice President doesn’t actually have such a big role in the government, a split executive branch would be complex. The Vice President doesn’t have power to sign a bill, per se, but he does have influence on certain issues that may contrast with the policies of the President.
The president, if chosen by the House, must receive at least 26 votes to win. A state that has an even number of House seats may be evenly split in which candidate they choose for. Such a state cannot vote. A very practical example is Minnesota, with eight House members, four of which were Republicans and four of which were Democrats in 2012. A deadlocked state, like Minnesota at that time, would not have been able to vote had the presidential race gone to the House. vote. With several swing states having an even number of House members, it's possible for no candidate to win the presidency by getting a majority of states in the House to elect him/her. The Senate votes for Vice President and if they reach a 50-50 tie the serving VP adds a vote to chose the next Vice President. Hence it is possible for there to be an elected VP but for there to be no President. In such a case the chosen Vice President serves as President because no President was elected by Congress. Although such a scenario has never happened, it could, and if we wait long enough it will.
A Gallup poll from 2011 said that 62% of Americans would prefer to do away with the Electoral College. While it had a legitimate purpose many years ago it is now outdated, unfair, and could have difficult impacts in the event of a tie. Even Donald Trump, who only won the election because of the Electoral College, called it a “disaster for a democracy” on Twitter in 2012.