Electoral College Requires Reform

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

The Electoral College, established in 1787 under Article II of the US Constitution, remains the mechanism through which presidents are formally elected. While originally designed to balance influence among states and prevent direct popular rule, it has become increasingly contentious in modern democratic context. While proponents assert that it upholds federalism, preserves political stability and ensures smaller states retain a voice, it is outdated due to the fact it has become undemocratic and distorting its effect on campaigns, representation and outcomes. The growing number of elections in which the winner of the popular vote has lost the presidency- alongside increasing focus on swing states- raises serious concerns questions about its suitability in modern democracy.

Question 2

1: Representation and Federal Balance

It could be argued that the electoral College protects federalism by ensuring that smaller states have a meaningful vote in presidential elections

Answer 2

-it was designed so that states like Wyoming or Alaska would not be rendered irrelevant by their sparse populations. Without such mechanism, only populous states like California or Texas might determine the national outcome, leaving others ignored.

1. Equalizing Influence
   The Electoral College ensures that smaller states retain a significant voice in presidential elections. For instance, states like Wyoming and Vermont, despite their small populations, each have a minimum of three electoral votes, preventing them from being entirely overshadowed by larger states like California or Texas. This structure compels candidates to consider the interests of less populous regions, promoting a more geographically inclusive campaign strategy.
   
   2. Founders’ Intent
      The framers of the Constitution designed the Electoral College to balance the influence between populous and less populous states, preserving the federal character of the nation. By allocating electoral votes based on congressional representation, the system was meant to prevent a few densely populated areas from dominating national elections. This design encourages candidates to build broad coalitions that encompass diverse regional interests.
   3. 2024 Election Dynamics
      In the 2024 election, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris focused significant campaign efforts on smaller swing states like Nevada and New Hampshire. Despite their limited number of electoral votes, these states received considerable attention, demonstrating how the Electoral College incentivizes candidates to engage with a wide range of states, not just the most populous ones. This approach underscores the system’s role in ensuring that smaller states are not neglected in the electoral process.

-the College encourages nationwide campaigning and reflects the principle of the United States as a union of states not just individuals.

Question 3

1: Representation and Federal Balance

However a more convincing argument is that the system now results in an excessive influence of small states, where votes are worth significantly more.

Answer 3

-For instance, in 2020, a voter in Wyoming had roughly 3.7 times the electoral influence of a California voter. This violates the democratic ideal of “one person, one vote” and creates inequity in representation.

1. Vote Weight Disparity
   The Electoral College results in disproportionate representation, where votes in less populous states carry more weight than those in more populous ones. For example, a vote in Wyoming has significantly more influence on the Electoral College outcome than a vote in California. This imbalance challenges the principle of “one person, one vote,” leading to questions about the equity of the electoral process.
   
   2. Overrepresentation of Small States
      Smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College relative to their population sizes, granting them greater influence per voter. This overrepresentation can skew national policy priorities, as candidates may tailor their platforms to appeal to these states’ interests disproportionately. Consequently, the concerns of voters in larger states may be underrepresented in national discourse.
   3. 2024 Election Outcome
      In the 2024 election, Donald Trump secured 312 electoral votes compared to Kamala Harris’s 226, despite a narrow popular vote margin of approximately 1.5 percentage points. This outcome illustrates how the Electoral College can amplify the impact of victories in smaller states, allowing a candidate to win the presidency without a substantial popular vote lead. Such scenarios highlight the potential disconnect between the Electoral College results and the national popular will.

-furthermore, over 80% of Americans live in so-called “spectator states” that receive no meaningful attention because their outcomes are predictable. Thus the college fails to genuinely uphold federal balance and instead entrenches structural unfairness

Question 4

2: Electoral Legitimacy and Distorted Outcomes

It could be argued that the Electoral College brings clarity and legitimacy by delivering decisive outcomes preserving the two-party system, thus preventing fragmented results.

Answer 4

-by encouraging majoritarian mandates, the College can unify a diverse nation under a single executive. The majority of the presidents have won both the popular and electoral vote, reinforcing public trust and confidence in the system

1. Decisive Results
   The Electoral College often produces clear and decisive outcomes, reducing the likelihood of contested elections. In 2024, Donald Trump’s victory with 312 electoral votes provided a definitive result, facilitating a smooth transition of power. This clarity can enhance public confidence in the electoral process and the legitimacy of the presidency.
   
   2. Two-Party Reinforcement
      By favoring a two-party system, the Electoral College contributes to political stability and governance efficiency. It discourages the proliferation of fringe parties, which can lead to fragmented legislatures and unstable coalitions. This structure encourages the formation of broad-based parties that aim to appeal to a wide electorate.
   3. 2024 Election Clarity
      The 2024 election concluded with a prompt certification of results, as Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the session that confirmed Trump’s victory. The process proceeded without incident, contrasting with previous elections that faced delays and disputes. This efficiency underscores the Electoral College’s role in facilitating orderly electoral outcomes.

Question 5

2: electoral legitimacy and distorted outcomes

However, a more convincing argument is that the College frequently distorts the actual popular will, thereby undermining legitimacy

Answer 5

-in both 2000 and 2016, the candidate who received fewer votes nationwide became president- a direct contradiction to democratic majority rule.

-moreover, electoral distortion is compounded by the winner-takes-all system in 48 states, where a slim margin of victory- such as one votes in Texas- grants the candidate 100% of that state’s college votes.

1. Popular Vote Discrepancy
   The Electoral College can result in a candidate winning the presidency without securing the majority of the national popular vote, as seen in the 2000 and 2016 elections. Such outcomes can undermine the perceived legitimacy of the president and erode public trust in the democratic process. The potential for this discrepancy remains a contentious issue in American politics.
   
   2. Swing State Domination
      The Electoral College concentrates campaign efforts on a limited number of swing states, leading candidates to focus disproportionately on these areas. In 2024, both campaigns heavily targeted states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, while largely ignoring states considered safely Democratic or Republican. This focus can marginalize voters in non-competitive states, reducing their influence on the election outcome.
   3. 2024 Election Implications
      Despite winning the popular vote by approximately 1.5 percentage points, Trump’s victory hinged on narrow margins in key swing states. A shift of around 230,000 votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin could have altered the Electoral College outcome in favor of Harris. This scenario highlights how a small number of votes in specific states can determine the presidency, raising concerns about the representativeness of the Electoral College system.

-this exaggerates support and misrepresents voter intent. In 2020, a shift of just 21,461 voters across Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin could have flipped the Electoral college result despite Biden’s 7 million popular vote lead. This shows that the system allows a tiny group of voters in swing states to outweigh millions elsewhere, eroding public trust.

Question 6

3:campaign strategy and democratic engagement

It could be argued that the electoral college fosters a focused and strategic campaign process by encouraging candidates to concentrate on competitive states where outcomes are uncertain

Answer 6

-this prevents wasteful spending and ensures engagement in regions that are politically diverse, potentially heightening voter participation where it matters most

1. Intensive Focus on Key Battlegrounds
   Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris concentrated their campaign efforts on pivotal swing states. Between August and November 2024, they made a combined 52 visits to Pennsylvania and Michigan, underscoring the strategic importance of these states in the Electoral College system. This targeted approach reflects how the Electoral College incentivizes candidates to prioritize states that can sway the election outcome.
   
   2. Tailored Messaging to Regional Concerns
      Trump’s campaign employed a strategy focusing on low-propensity voters in swing states, emphasizing themes like “strength vs. weakness” and “success vs. failure.” This approach aimed to resonate with voters who might feel overlooked, demonstrating how the Electoral College encourages candidates to address specific regional issues.
   3. Resource Allocation Reflecting Electoral Priorities
      Over 87% of campaign events by both candidates were held in seven key swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This concentration of efforts highlights how the Electoral College system directs campaign resources and attention to states that are crucial for securing electoral votes.

Question 7

3: campaign strategy and democratic engagement

However, a more convincing argument is that the system grossly distorts campaign strategy, leading to an unhealthy obsession with swing states.

Answer 7

-96% of 2016 campaign events took place in just 8 states, while 39 states received no visits at all. This undermines national unity and ignores the policy concerns of vast regions, especially in coastal and rural areas that are safely red or blue. Candidates tailor their messaging not to national priorities, but to demographics in battleground states- such as avoiding criticism of Medicare in Florida due to its older population.

1. Neglect of Non-Competitive States
   In the 2024 election, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris concentrated their campaign efforts predominantly on seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. An analysis revealed that over 87% of their combined 285 campaign events between July 21 and November 4 occurred in these battleground states. Conversely, 35 states received no visits from either candidate, highlighting a strategic neglect of states perceived as safely Democratic or Republican. This pattern underscores how the Electoral College system incentivizes candidates to focus on a limited number of competitive states, effectively sidelining a vast portion of the electorate.
   
   2. Policy Skewing Towards Swing State Interests
      The disproportionate focus on swing states led candidates to tailor their policies to appeal specifically to voters in these regions, potentially at the expense of broader national interests. For instance, in Pennsylvania—a pivotal swing state with significant fracking activity—both campaigns moderated their environmental policies to avoid alienating local voters concerned about energy jobs. This strategic pandering illustrates how the Electoral College can distort national policy discussions, compelling candidates to prioritize the interests of a few states over comprehensive, nationwide policy platforms.
   3. Disparities in Voter Influence
      The Electoral College system amplifies the influence of voters in swing states while diminishing that of those in non-competitive states. In 2024, the combined campaign visits to Pennsylvania and Michigan totaled 52, whereas 35 states received no visits at all. This disparity means that voters in swing states had significantly more opportunities to engage with the candidates and influence campaign discourse. Such unequal attention undermines the democratic principle of equal representation, as the weight of a citizen’s vote varies dramatically depending on their state’s competitiveness.

-as a result, democratic participation is disincentivised in “safe” seats, and public discourse is narrowed, limiting informed, inclusive engagement across the country

Question 8

Conclusion

Answer 8

In theory, the Electoral College upholds federalism and ensures that every state has a voice. However, in practice, it has become a distorting and undemocratic relic, producing presidents who lack a popular mandate, incentivising narrow campaign strategies and granting outsized influence to small and swing states.