Every four years, Americans head to the polls to cast their vote for president. But contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is not a direct democracy when it comes to choosing its highest office. The Electoral College, a process laid out in the Constitution, is the real decider. How did this unique system come to be? How exactly does it work? And why is it so controversial? Let’s take a closer look.
The Origins of the Electoral College
When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they grappled with how to best select a chief executive. Some favored a direct popular vote, while others proposed Congressional selection. The Electoral College emerged as a compromise, giving each state a number of electors based on its representation in Congress.
But the origins of the system were far from purely democratic. The three-fifths compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for population purposes, gave southern states disproportionate power in the Electoral College. There were also fears that average citizens would be unable to make an informed choice between candidates from different states.
How the Electoral College Works Today
In the modern era, each state is allocated a number of electors equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. There are currently 538 electors, and a candidate needs a majority of 270 to win the presidency.
48 states and Washington D.C. use a winner-take-all system, where the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state claims all its electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska use a district system, allocating two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district.
After the general election, the electors from each state meet to cast their votes. Historically, electors almost always vote for their state’s winner, but “faithless electors” who vote differently have appeared in several elections.
The Controversy: Critics Argue The System Is Undemocratic
In recent years, the Electoral College has faced intensifying criticism. Detractors argue that the system is fundamentally undemocratic, allowing a candidate to win the presidency without winning the national popular vote, as happened in 2000 with George W. Bush and 2016 with Donald Trump.
The winner-take-all system in most states means millions of votes effectively count for nothing. Candidates have little incentive to campaign in non-competitive states. The influence of swing states like Florida and Ohio is hugely magnified. A Wyoming voter has nearly four times as much clout as a California voter.
There have probably been over a thousand attempts to get rid of the Electoral College through constitutional amendments. But they’ve all failed.
– Alexander Keyssar, historian and author
Attempts at Reform and Abolishment
Efforts to abolish or modify the Electoral College date back to the early 19th century. Over 700 amendments have been proposed in Congress. But the closest the nation came to abolishment was in 1969, when the House overwhelmingly passed an amendment for a direct popular vote. It failed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
More recently, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has emerged as an attempted end-run around the Electoral College. The agreement would have states award their electors to the national popular vote winner, regardless of individual state results. But it faces major hurdles, including potential Constitutional challenges.
The 2024 Election: High Stakes for the System
As the nation gears up for another high-stakes presidential race, the Electoral College will once again be in the spotlight. If either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris wins the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, as many analysts believe is a real possibility, calls for reform or abolishment will likely reach a fever pitch.
It’s not like we are suddenly discovering this system really doesn’t work.
– Alexander Keyssar, historian and author
But given the intense partisan divide and the daunting constitutional obstacles to change, the nation may be stuck with this imperfect and idiosyncratic system for the foreseeable future. The Electoral College, love it or hate it, will likely be deciding who occupies the Oval Office for elections to come.
