By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The current electoral college system allows for a presidential candidate to win without securing the national popular vote, as evidenced by recent elections. This system disproportionately focuses campaigning efforts on a few swing states, ignoring the concerns of voters elsewhere. A winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes disenfranchises voters in states leaning heavily towards one party. Reforming the system to proportionally allocate electoral votes based on the popular vote within each state would ensure every vote counts and lessen the chance of a popular vote loser winning the presidency. This reform, while potentially maintaining the electoral college, would address many of its current flaws.
Read the original article here
The electoral college is a deeply flawed system for choosing a president. It consistently undermines the principle of “one person, one vote,” leading to situations where the popular vote winner loses the election. This has happened multiple times, most notably with Bush v. Gore and Trump v. Clinton, dramatically altering the course of American history. Imagine the drastically different political landscape we’d inhabit if the popular vote determined the presidency.
The claim that the problem lies solely in how electoral votes are allocated within states, and not the system itself, is a misleading distraction. The fundamental issue is that an indirect system, where electors rather than citizens directly choose the president, is inherently undemocratic. A head of government should be chosen directly by the people they govern, absent a parliamentary system. This is a fundamental truth, not a mere refrain.
The near impossibility of amending the Constitution to abolish the electoral college is a significant hurdle. Achieving the necessary supermajorities in both Congress and state legislatures is virtually insurmountable, given the vested interests of those who benefit from the status quo. This isn’t surprising; significant systemic change seldom occurs easily.
The lack of urgency from many mainstream media outlets to address this issue is alarming. Instead of vigorous, insightful analysis, we see repetitive commentary, echoing talking points instead of offering fresh perspectives. It suggests a deeper problem: a reluctance to confront the inherent inequalities and undemocratic nature of the electoral college. This lack of incisive journalism only serves to further erode public trust.
The system’s inherent biases are undeniable. The electoral college disproportionately favors smaller states, giving their voters significantly more weight than those in larger states. This effectively disenfranchises a substantial portion of the electorate, rendering their votes virtually meaningless. The argument that it balances the power between large and small states is a weak justification for this blatant inequality.
The current system not only disenfranchises voters but also fuels partisan division. It encourages a focus on swing states, leading to campaigns that prioritize specific regions over national concerns. This allows candidates to win without securing the majority of the popular vote, fostering a sense of unfairness and undermining the legitimacy of the outcome. It’s a recipe for discontent and further polarization.
Reform proposals are often met with resistance, highlighting the entrenched power structures that benefit from the current arrangement. These vested interests, be they political parties, wealthy donors, or media conglomerates, actively work to maintain the status quo, irrespective of democratic ideals. The pursuit of electoral reform feels perpetually stalled, even more so when considering the difficult hurdle of securing the necessary support for constitutional amendment. It’s a system seemingly designed to preserve the power of the few, not to represent the will of the many.
The idea that the electoral college prevents the election of “dangerous” candidates is a myth. Its history shows that it has allowed, and even facilitated, the election of candidates with questionable qualifications and divisive agendas. Rather than acting as a safeguard, it has in fact provided a pathway for candidates to win without broad popular support, potentially jeopardizing national stability. The possibility of rigging an election by focusing on a few key states is very real, highlighting another serious flaw of the system.
The two-party system, further reinforced by the winner-takes-all aspect of the electoral college, exacerbates these problems. It limits voter choice, stifles diverse viewpoints, and perpetuates a cycle of political gridlock and extremism. Moving to a system that allows for proportional representation, or ranked-choice voting, could significantly improve the situation. It’s time to move beyond simply complaining about the system and to actively work towards solutions, even if they require significant effort and political will.
Ultimately, the electoral college represents a significant barrier to true democracy in the United States. Its inherent flaws undermine the principle of equal representation and contribute to political instability. Until it is abolished or fundamentally reformed, the American presidential election will remain a deeply flawed process, a shadow of the genuine, representative democracy it should be. The time to act is now, before the next election cycle exposes the system’s fundamental weaknesses yet again.