Skip to content
Subscribe

The Electoral College is Outdated and Undemocratic

The Electoral College is Outdated and Undemocratic
Published:

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now beating President-elect Donald Trump in the popular vote by more than 2 million votes. This is by far the biggest deficit in popular votes by a winning candidate in the history of the country.

But the discrepancy between electoral and popular votes shouldn’t make us question the legitimacy of the election -- the Electoral College is the law of the land. In the words of president-elect Donald Trump, abolishing the Electoral College would make for a “whole different  campaign.”

Under the current system, one of the first questions that a presidential hopeful probably asks him or herself is: Can I win the battleground states? Can I win Ohio? Can I win Florida? Do I have the policy chops to cut it in North Carolina?

If the aforementioned questions seem very focussed on swing states, it’s because of our current system: the Electoral College. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said it best: “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president, 12 states are,” and right he was.

According to the National Popular Vote, 94% of presidential campaign events in 2016 (375 of the 399) were held in 12 states (the 11 states identified earlier in the year as "battleground" states by Politico and The Hill, plus Arizona), with 68% held in only 6 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan).

So guess what? If you are not a voter in one of those states, then your vote doesn’t mean as much. The presidential candidates and their respective campaigns agree.

A voter from swing-state Florida is immensely more important than a voter in consistently red Texas in our current system. So all of the campaign’s resources are being poured into this minority of states which accumulate all of the attention and leave most of the other 38 states in the cold.

Some of the arguments that proponents of the Electoral College system make is that, if the electoral system wasn’t in effect, candidates would just campaign in the big states, disregarding the smaller states and not taking their unique policy needs into account. Unfortunately, small states are still being disregarded, along with every state that is not included with the special “battleground” states.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, 99.6% of advertising funds were used in only 10 battleground states, according to Fair Vote. The result? Voters in battleground states turn out at a higher rate (on average 7.4% higher) than the other 38.

Under our current system, presidential campaigns tell most voters, “your vote doesn’t matter.” Worse still, the system encourages the media to focus only on those states, essentially making the other states almost irrelevant.

This creates all sorts of implications for down-ballot races and propositions, and can lead to a disconnect between the American people and the Executive Branch.

The problem is further aggravated when you take into account that battleground states are not only getting the electoral benefits, but are also receiving funding and policy advantages. According to the National Popular Vote, “Battleground states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants, twice as many disaster declarations, considerably more Superfund and No Child Left Behind exemptions, and benefit from many other major presidential policy decisions.”

So why would a majority of the American people support this clearly outdated system? The answer is simple. They don’t. A Gallup poll conducted in 2013 shows that 63% of Americans support doing away with the Electoral College, with support coming from across the aisle.

gallup-poll

So is the Electoral College in line with the concept of “one person, one vote”? Is it fostering democracy and promoting voter turnout across the republic as a whole? It certainly doesn’t appear so.

But the two-party duopoly, which has pretty much taken over the Electoral College system, driving it in a direction that is not compatible with our Founding Fathers’ original intent, have grown to like the comfortable balance that it provides for their agenda.

It’s time to fix our most important election process, promote voter participation among ALL of our states, and restore faith in our democratic process.

Please tune in next week, as I will discuss possible courses of action and what the future might look like for the Electoral College.

Photo Credit: txking / Shutterstock.com

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

The Electoral College is Outdated and Undemocratic

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us