The U.S. presidential election has a unique system that both baffles and intrigues. In stark contrast to numerous other countries, the winner of the general presidential election isn’t determined by popular vote. The Electoral College, a system that grants each state a certain number of electors to participate in the voting process, is the actual decision-maker. This system pays no heed to national popularity but to state-specific popularity, and therein lies the distinctive nature of our electoral process.
A total of 538 electors comprise the Electoral College, their numbers divided among the U.S. representatives, U.S. senators and three additional electors for Washington D.C. The allocation of electors for individual states is guided by the size of each state’s Congressional delegation, which directly correlates with population size.
Sophisticated in its construct, the Electoral College allows every state, from populous California with its 54 electors to sparsely-populated Wyoming with three electors, to have a say in the overall results. Quite intuitively, the candidate scoring a victory in a particular state gains the support of that state’s electors. Hence, the democratic process ensures that a winning candidate in California could receive a large Electoral College boost.
The United States of America, breaking from the notion of a homogenous political landscape, showcases a spectrum of political opinions and preferences. Some states lean firmly towards one party, reliably producing large margins of victory. However, the true lure of the campaign trail lies within the swing states.
Swing states, changing hands between Republicans and Democrats, can alter the course of the election. With typically six or seven such states in an election year, these become the ultimate battlegrounds. Such states stirred up wonderful victories for former President Donald Trump, while the Democrats played catch-up.
Although efficient in its setup, the Electoral College has garnered criticism, mostly from Democrats who misunderstand the system, saying it overrepresents small states and undermines the power of larger states. They claim that California, having only 54 votes compared to Wyoming’s three while housing 67 times more people, seems unjust.
Further complaints stem from a ‘winner-takes-all’ model utilized by most states, accusing it of leaving those who vote for the losing candidate ‘unrepresented’. However, it is futile to bemoan a losing vote as being ‘unrepresented’, every contest has winners and losers. Democrats often bring up these ‘controversies’ when they fail to secure electoral votes.
The Electoral College, born out of our founders’ wisdom during the assembly of the Constitution in 1787, intended to prevent centralization of power, and maintain a fair balance of interests among diverse states. This level of foresight has been forgotten by those who continue to distort historical facts.
Critics of the Electoral College also bring up their frequent and misplaced narrative of slavery to demonize the system. They argue that Southern states exploited the three-fifths compromise to inflate their representation. Yet, most historians, when viewing it unbiasedly, see it as a pre-party concession that couldn’t foresee the evolution of political parties.
The 12th amendment, ratifying the system we use today, was implied after the disputed election of 1800. It established the structured procedure where electors vote for president and vice president, preventing multiple candidates from securing a majority of electoral votes. An unsurprisingly wise move, despite being often berated by Democrats who show little regard for constitutional safeguards.
While the Democrats like to complain about the Electoral college and its rules, their calls to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College might remain a desire. Such an amendment requires a nod from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, a tall order indeed.
States have however attempted to defy the existing norms by signing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under this, states would hand over their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, a clear bypassing of the state-wide vote. However, the overall legality and effectiveness of this compact is unclear.
Predictably, the Democrats continue to distort the fundamentals of our democracy for their short-term gains. The genius of the Electoral College helps preserve the balance of power among the states, and these undermining attempts need to be seen for what they are – attempts to bypass due democratic procedures for partisan advantage.