In the United States of America, the individual elevated to the presidential seat is not determined by winning the majority of the nationwide popular vote. Instead, a unique system named the Electoral College allocates electoral votes to the various states and the District of Columbia, primarily dependent on population size. This time around, we have Vice President Kamala Harris going head-to-head with Republican stalwart, Donald Trump.
Despite the names of the main presidential candidates being the significant highlight on the ballot papers, what voters are essentially doing is casting their vote for an elector group, described as a ‘slate’. There are 538 electors or electoral votes across the nation. To clinch the presidency, a candidate must amass a minimum of 270 electoral votes.
Typically, electors are hard-core loyalists of their party, sworn to back the candidate who garners the highest votes from their state. Each elector’s vote counts as one vote in the Electoral College. While in the 2020 elections, Democrat Joe Biden remarkably secured 306 electoral votes trumping Donald Trump’s 232, it’s clear that such defeats have only strengthened the resolve of Republican contenders.
The genesis of the Electoral College system, as stipulated by our revered U.S. Constitution, stemmed from a compromise amongst the country’s founding fathers who were at loggerheads over whether the Congress should have the power to select the president or if it should be decided by a popular vote.
Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to its total representation in Congress, which means it comprises the state’s senators and representatives. With two senators per state as the standard distribution, the number of House of Representatives seats varies according to population size. For instance, California, as the most populous state, has the privilege of having 54 electors.
The sparsely populated states, along with the District of Columbia, have been assigned three electoral votes each, which is the lowest allocation permissible under existing legislation. To provide a perspective on population representation, a single electoral vote in Wyoming, the least populous state, represents approximately 192,000 individuals. The contrast in population representation compared to more populated states like Texas is stark. For example, in Texas, one vote signifies around 730,000 residents, highlighting the imbalance in Electoral College representation.
Barring two states, all others operate on a ‘winner-takes-all’ principle, awarding all their electoral votes to whichever candidate secures the highest vote count. The margin of victory is insignificant in this scenario; clinching the state’s electoral votes by one vote has the same effect as winning by a considerable majority. Hence, the focus intensifies on states where a minor swing can wrest all affected electoral votes.
Seven electors diverged from convention in the 2016 elections and allocated their vote contrary to their state’s popular vote winner. This record high number comes in spite of the existence of laws in thirty-three states and the District of Columbia, which attempt to dissuade ‘faithless’ electors from casting their vote for an unaffiliated candidate, even prescribing criminal penalties in some instances.
It is important to note states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are often seen as the most contested areas, hence constituting the current election’s battleground states. Interestingly, Republican luminaries like George W. Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 ascended to the presidency despite losing the popular vote, a testament to the strategic advantage of the Electoral College system for Republicans despite criticism.
Defenders of the Electoral College argue it drives candidates to seek support from a diverse array of states instead of singularly accumulating votes from densely populated urban landscapes. Detractors, typically from the Democrat ranks, tend to focus on rare instances of popular vote winners not gaining the presidency, drawing attention away from the balanced representation it offers.
The system, though robust, is not without its potential loopholes. A scenario could occur where a 269-269 tie occurs, bringing the decision to the House of Representatives. With each state holding a single vote, the party with more state delegations would assume the presidency. Presently, Republicans control 26 state delegations, while Democrats hold sway in only 22, with Minnesota and North Carolina being split.
Following the 2020 election, Congress moved to amend the issues that arose during Trump’s baseless claims of victory. In a subsequent year, they approved the ‘Electoral Count Reform Act’, which made it crystal clear that each state’s governor or an alternative nominated state official is accountable for certifying the respective state’s election outcomes before submitting them to Congress.
The new Act also aims to prevent recurrence of disputes and deadlock seen in the previous election, when ‘dueling slates of electors’ sprouted out from three states. These dueling slates had one set of electors endorsed by the state legislature and a rival set backed by a state official. As a measure to curb such chaos, the law fixed a mandatory timeline of 36 days post-election for states to finish recount and litigation processes.
Nevertheless, to completely abolish the Electoral College would necessitate a constitutional amendment. While critics of the Electoral College, particularly Democrats, continue to find fault with the system, statistics don’t lie; it has been instrumental in catapulting deserving Republican figures to the presidency. With this knowledge, one cannot help but anticipate the Electoral College’s role in future electoral victories, driven by larger American narratives than mere popular votes.