Since the very beginnings of this nation under the U.S. Constitution, presidential elections have been conducted under a very specific set of rules. The country is divided into several states. In the General Election each state, in a way, conducts their own election. Voters are prompted to choose between each nominee running for president, and they can only choose one (except in Alaska, Maine, and a few select cities in certain states, which follow Ranked-Choice Voting). After the polls close for the election in each state, results start coming in. In each state (besides Maine and Nebraska), the candidate with the most votes take all of that state’s electoral votes. The electoral vote count for each state is determined by their number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives, plus the two members for each state in the U.S. Senate. Then electors from each state meet and cast their electoral votes for whoever their state voted for, and whoever has the majority, which is currently 270, wins the presidential election.
The Problems of Using This System
With this system, lesser populations of smaller states actually have more power in presidential elections than bigger ones. To explain this in more detail, let’s look at two states that are inherently different, California, and Wyoming. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2019, California has a population of 39.51 million. On the other hand, Wyoming, which is among the least populated states in the country, has a population of 578,759. Now, let’s look at the electoral value of each state. California has 54 electoral votes, compared to Wyoming’s 3. That means California is worth 18 times as much as Wyoming in a presidential election. That also means each electoral vote in California represents about 731,666 citizens, and one electoral vote in Wyoming represents 192,919 people. Therefore, since one electoral vote represents fewer people in Wyoming, one person has more control on who receives one electoral vote than one person does in California. California has a larger population per electoral vote, meaning one person has less control over which campaign receives an electoral vote. This is how the electoral college favors rural states.
That isn’t the only flaw with the electoral college. In the US, most states are either fairly liberal or fairly conservative, besides a few that lie in between. A lot of these states switch parties from election to election. These are called swing states, and they hold the most power in a presidential election because they decide which nominee gets the majority of the electoral vote. The total popular vote of these states are often split in even, causing independents or moderates to be the deciders in who their state votes for. Currently, the most competitive states are Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, Georgia, Arizona, among a few others. Now, the problem with this system is for example, if you’re a conservative living in New York, or a liberal living in Tennessee, you can already assume ahead of time that there is a pretty good chance that your state will vote for the opposing party. Because of this, you may feel unmotivated to vote, because it will make no difference. Or, if your state heavily leans towards your party, then you can also feel unmotivated to vote, because you know that your party will win regardless. Living in a swing state is better in this situation, because you have more control and power over the outcome, and you feel more motivated to vote because there’s more competition between the parties. This also makes candidates only campaign in swing states because that’s where they need more votes. A Democrat wouldn’t go campaigning in Hawaii, because that state leans heavily towards them, and to add on to that, Hawaii doesn’t carry that much electoral value, so there’s no point. And you also wouldn’t be campaigning in a state that supports heavily supports the opposite party. For example, you wouldn’t see a Republican running for president go to Massachusetts, a Democratic stronghold, because there’s no point in doing so unless you’re a Republican that supports liberal policies. If you go campaigning in a swing state, then there might be a chance that you could pick up that state.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)
But at times, this method had been questioned. Some people wondered if this was really an accurate way to elect the most powerful person in the country. Many, particularly progressives, think that a better way to determine the winner is by popular vote, the person who has more exact votes. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement made among multiple states to award all of their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote. This agreement will go into effect once enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes have joined the compact. With this in effect, whoever wins the popular vote will also win the election, even with the electoral college existing simultaneously. So far, the 15 states that have joined are Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Colorado, New Mexico, Delaware, Oregon, plus D.C. This totals 195 electoral votes, which equals about 72% of the needed 270.
The Controversy
But this system has some notable flaws. The issue is that people from all backgrounds and living situations might not be represented. More of the population tend to live in urban areas, and areas with more population density. That means with the popular vote, only the needs and desires of urban populations would be mostly considered, and citizens living in other areas might not be represented. For example, an issue that rural populations face may not be brought into light, because in the urban world, that issue may be non-existent. So the urban population, which controls the popular vote, probably won’t even consider those issues and those issues wouldn’t be voted for. However, with only one candidate winning, you can't represent every type of community, unlike in the House of Representatives. Many of the ideals that an urban area may support may contradict the ideals of a rural area. One candidate really can't support both sides of an issue, especially one that has little to no middle-ground. In these types of scenarios, the majority should be the decider, since that would impact more people.
Only five total presidents have been elected into office while losing the popular vote in U.S. history. In the last 134 years, only two presidents have lost the national popular vote but won the election, George W. Bush (R) in 2000, and Donald Trump (R) in 2016. The last time this had happened before was when Benjamin Harrison (R) beat Grover Cleveland (D) back in 1888, just a couple decades after the Civil War and way before the party realignment.
With midterm elections right around the corner, the victors of state legislative elections would determine the likelihood of several key states adopting the NPVIC. There are currently multiple states that have bills introduced to join the compact, but the probability of them passing in most states are low. The outcome of the midterm elections may or may not change this.
Requested by Andre 🤍
