How the Electoral College works

Full Answer Section

1. Casting Ballots: When citizens vote for president, they are technically voting for a slate of electors pledged to a particular candidate. After the general election in November, these electors meet in their respective states in mid-December to cast their official votes for president and vice president.
2. Winning the Presidency: To win the presidency, a candidate needs to secure a majority of the electoral votes, which is currently 270 out of 538.
3. Faithless Electors (Rare): While electors are generally pledged to vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote, there have been rare instances of "faithless electors" who vote for someone else. Some states have laws or penalties against this, but it rarely impacts the outcome.
4. House of Representatives Tie-Breaker: If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives decides the election. Each state delegation gets one vote, and a majority of state delegations is needed to elect the president. This has only happened twice in U.S. history.
5. Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote: It is possible for a candidate to win the national popular vote but lose the Electoral College vote, and thus the presidency. This has happened five times, most recently in 2000 and 2016, leading to significant debate.

My Thoughts on the Electoral College

The Electoral College is a complex system with valid arguments on both sides. From a purely democratic perspective, it is problematic that the candidate with the most individual votes nationwide can lose the election. This undermines the "one person, one vote" principle and can lead to feelings of disenfranchisement.

However, I also recognize the historical context and the functions it was intended to serve. The core tension lies between direct democracy (popular vote) and federalism (representation of states).

Does it Serve Any Useful Function?

Supporters argue that the Electoral College serves several useful functions:

• Protects Smaller States: Without it, candidates might focus solely on densely populated areas (e.g., major cities in large states), neglecting the concerns and diverse interests of less populous states and rural areas. It forces candidates to build broader coalitions across different states and regions.
• Promotes National Unity: By requiring candidates to win support across various states, it encourages them to appeal to a wider range of voters and issues, fostering a sense of national unity rather than just winning over specific regional interests.
• Encourages a Two-Party System: While some see this as a downside, proponents argue it promotes political stability by making it harder for splinter parties to gain traction and forcing compromise within major parties.
• Provides a Clear Winner: In most cases, the Electoral College quickly produces a clear winner, avoiding the need for nationwide recounts that could be messy and protracted.
• Historical Precedent/Stability: It has been in place for over 200 years and has generally facilitated peaceful transfers of power.

Does it Need to be Scrapped?

The question of whether the Electoral College needs to be scrapped is highly contentious.

Arguments from Supporters:

• Balances Power: It maintains the balance of power between large and small states, preventing a few populous states from dominating presidential elections.
• Federalism: It reinforces the idea of the U.S. as a republic of states, not just a mass democracy. States, as entities, have a role in choosing the president.
• Avoids "Tyranny of the Majority": It protects minority voices and diverse regional interests from being overridden by a simple majority concentrated in a few areas.
• Campaign Strategy: It encourages candidates to campaign across a wider geographic area, focusing on battleground states that represent a cross-section of the country.

Arguments from Detractors:

• Undemocratic: The most common criticism is that it's undemocratic, as the person with the most votes doesn't always win. This undermines the principle of "one person, one vote."
• Focus on Swing States: It leads candidates to disproportionately focus their attention and resources on a small number of "swing states," effectively ignoring voters in states that consistently vote for one party. This can lead to voter apathy in "safe" states.
• Disenfranchisement: Voters in non-swing states may feel their vote doesn't matter as much, leading to lower voter turnout.
• Faithless Electors: The possibility, however rare, of electors not voting as pledged is seen as a flaw that could subvert the will of the voters.
• Roots in Slavery: Critics point out that the Electoral College was a compromise partly designed to appease Southern states by allowing them to count enslaved people (who couldn't vote) as 3/5ths of a person for representation, thus increasing their electoral power.
• Overrepresentation of Smaller States: Due to the two extra electoral votes for senators, smaller states have a disproportionately higher per-capita influence in the Electoral College than larger states.

If I Think We Need an Alternative, What Would I Recommend?

Given the strong arguments against the current system, particularly the popular vote/electoral vote divergence, I believe an alternative would be beneficial for a more truly representative democracy.

My recommendation would be the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

How it works: The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. It is an interstate compact, meaning it's an agreement among states, and does not require a constitutional amendment. The compact would only go into effect once enough states join to collectively hold 270 electoral votes (the number needed to win the presidency).

Why I recommend it:

• Addresses the Popular Vote Discrepancy: This is the most direct solution to ensure the candidate with the most votes nationwide wins the presidency, aligning the electoral outcome with the will of the majority of citizens.
• Bypasses Constitutional Amendment: Changing the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment is incredibly difficult and unlikely to happen due to the high thresholds for approval (two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states). The NPVIC offers a feasible path to reform without amending the Constitution.
• Maintains State-Based System (Technically): While effectively creating a national popular vote election, it still operates within the existing framework of the Electoral College, using state-level electors.
• Encourages Nationwide Campaigning: Candidates would be incentivized to campaign and appeal to voters in all states, not just a handful of swing states, because every single vote would contribute to their national popular vote total.
• Boosts Voter Turnout: When every vote truly counts equally, it could increase voter engagement and turnout across the country.

While the NPVIC does not abolish the Electoral College entirely, it functionally neutralizes its most criticized aspect – the potential for a popular vote winner to lose the election – while operating within the existing constitutional structure. It represents a pragmatic and impactful step towards a more equitable and democratic presidential election process in the United States.

Sample Answer

The Electoral College is a distinctive and often controversial feature of the United States presidential election system.

How the Electoral College Works

Instead of directly electing the president and vice president by national popular vote, the U.S. uses the Electoral College. Here's a breakdown:

1. Electors per State: Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes, equal to its total number of representatives in Congress (its two senators plus its number of House representatives, which is based on population). The District of Columbia also gets three electoral votes. There are currently a total of 538 electoral votes.
2. Winner-Take-All (Mostly): In 48 out of 50 states and Washington D.C., the candidate who wins the popular vote within that state receives all of that state's electoral votes. This is known as the "winner-take-all" or "general ticket" system. Maine and Nebraska are exceptions, allocating their electoral votes proportionally or by congressional district.
3. Casting Ballots: When citizens vote for president, they are technically voting for a slate of electors pledged to a particular candidate. After the general election in November, these electors meet in their respective states in mid-December to cast their official votes for president and vice president.