One of the clearest reasons for abolishing the Electoral College is that it could result in a president who did not win the popular vote. This contradicts the democratic principle that the candidate with the most votes should win.
Several times in history, including in 2000 and 2016, the Electoral College chose a president despite a different candidate receiving more votes nationwide. This undermines the will of the majority and creates a sense of injustice in the democratic process. A system where the person who wins the most votes doesn't always win the presidency is inherently flawed.
The Electoral College violates the “one person, one vote” principle of democracy. Under the current system, a voter in Wyoming has significantly more electoral influence than a voter in California. This disparity occurs because each state, regardless of population, is awarded a minimum of three electoral votes.
As a result, votes in smaller states carry more weight than those in larger states. This unequal distribution of voting power means that not every citizen’s vote is counted equally, which is fundamentally undemocratic and undermines the fairness of national elections.
Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates tend to focus their campaigns on swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania, where the outcome is uncertain. States that consistently vote Republican or Democrat are largely ignored, leaving millions of voters feeling irrelevant in the election process.
The disproportionate attention to swing states not only skews campaign promises but also limits the scope of national issues addressed during elections. The focus on a handful of states results in policies that cater to specific regional interests rather than the needs of the entire country, leaving many voters feeling sidelined.
In states where the outcome of the presidential election is virtually guaranteed, such as California for Democrats or Texas for Republicans, voters often feel their vote won’t make a difference. This discourages voter turnout, as people believe the winner is already determined by the state's electoral majority.
The result is a system where millions of voters feel disengaged from the electoral process, knowing their vote won't change the result in their state. A direct popular vote would encourage higher voter participation across the country, as every vote would matter equally, regardless of where it’s cast.
The Electoral College system allows for the possibility of "faithless electors," or electors who do not vote for the candidate they were pledged to support. Although rare, this loophole creates uncertainty in the election outcome. Voters expect that their state's electors will vote in accordance with the popular vote, but there is no federal law requiring them to do so.
Faithless electors undermine trust in the electoral process and can introduce chaos into an already complex system. Eliminating the Electoral College would remove this risk and ensure that the final vote accurately reflects the will of the people.
The Electoral College was created in the 18th century, in part, to address concerns about communication, literacy, and the role of the elite in governance. At the time, it made some sense to have electors make the final decision.
However, in the 21st century, when information is accessible to nearly everyone and the population is vastly larger, this system feels archaic. The idea that a small group of electors should have the power to determine the presidency is outdated. Modern technology and education levels make it possible for all voters to be informed and directly choose their president.
The Electoral College gives rural states with smaller populations more influence than their numbers warrant. States like Wyoming, with fewer people, have disproportionately greater electoral power compared to densely populated states like New York or California.
This overrepresentation means that rural interests are elevated at the expense of urban and suburban concerns, creating an imbalance in national policy-making. While it's important for rural areas to have a voice, the current system allows a minority of voters to have an outsized impact on the election, which is not representative of the country's diverse population.
The Electoral College contributes to political polarization by encouraging candidates to focus on swing states and ignore the broader electorate. In doing so, candidates craft messages tailored to win over a narrow group of voters rather than appealing to the country as a whole.
This selective campaigning deepens regional and partisan divides, as candidates adopt strategies that cater to specific demographics. A nationwide popular vote, on the other hand, would incentivize candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, promoting unity and reducing the hyper-partisan nature of modern American politics.
The Electoral College creates an uphill battle for third-party candidates, effectively limiting viable options in presidential elections. Because it operates on a winner-takes-all system in most states, third-party candidates struggle to gain electoral votes, even if they have substantial support.
Voters often feel compelled to choose between the two major parties to avoid "wasting" their votes. This discourages the growth of alternative political movements and limits the diversity of ideas in the political process. A popular vote system would give third-party candidates a fairer chance to compete and challenge the two-party dominance.
Polling consistently shows that a majority of Americans support abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote. According to one recent poll from the Pew Research Center, three out of five Americans support doing away with the Electoral College.
