The winner of any election is supposed to be the candidate that obtains the most votes, right? That is how every election is executed around the world.

But the rules are different in the United States.

In the case of 2016, the candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote by three million votes. But her opponent, Donald Trump, clinched the Electoral College vote, winning the US presidential election.

If the US promotes a democratic system, then why does it promote an anti-democratic method of electing the president?

In the original conception of our federal government, Alexander Hamilton laid out in The Federalist Papers, the creation of an Electoral College was meant to choose "men most capable of analyzing the qualities [of the elected candidate] to the station".

But the "men most capable" of choosing the next president are often handpicked by partisan loyalists to elect whoever the party nominated to be president: https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors. When a general citizen votes in the presidential election, the voter is not choosing the next president. The voter is choosing which candidate the state should elect. Therefore, the electoral process hinders on who shows up to vote in the first place.

And that is how political parties in the US sway elections in their favor (https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/). Voter ID laws and lack of voting locations were targets for communities for people of color to prevent them from gaining an equal footing with the white population. The ACLU, in an article on voter suppression, states the U.S. Government Accountability Office reduces voter turnout by 2-3 percentage points.

Speaking of voter suppression onto communities with people of color, Professor Akhil Reed Amar argued the US founding fathers created the electoral college to appease the slavery states for the sake of ratifying the US Constitution: (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar). Had the founding fathers decided that presidential elections be decided by the popular vote, Amar argues the southern states would have lost every election because a large percentage of its population was slaves the states were unwilling to permit to vote.

But, if the US has abolished the system of slavery, then why has it still adopted a system that was conceived to preserve it? For Amar, the reason was the comparison of populations in each given state. Proponents of the Electoral College state that a more direct election would have the results be decided by more populated areas such as New York City or Los Angeles.

The whole point of an election is by a simple process: one person, one vote. Each person's vote is worth the same value. So, it makes no sense why one person's vote should have more power over another's by virtue of residing in the right location.

CITATIONS:

“ACLU News & Commentary.” American Civil Liberties Union, 3 Feb. 2020, www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/.

“The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68.” Yale.edu, 2019, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp.

Illing, Sean. “The Real Reason We Have an Electoral College: To Protect Slave States.” Vox, Vox, 12 Nov. 2016, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar.

Millhiser, Ian. “America’s Democracy Is Failing. Here’s Why.” Vox, 30 Jan. 2020, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/30/20997046/constitution-electoral-college-senate-popular-vote-trump.

The electoral college system defines a unique feature of the U.S. democratic system. It allows for a split between popular vote results and the electoral outcome. Many have seen this as anti-democratic. Such rhetorics intensified significantly after the divisive 2016 and 2020 elections. In 2016, Donald Trump won the election 304-227 votes, despite losing the popular votes by 2 million. In 2020, he used the prolonged process of the system in his attempt to overturn his defeat, setting up political and legal challenges at each conjecture. As a result, the call to abolish the system has gained traction particularly among Democrats, who have been disadvantaged by the system twice in the past twenty years. However, the electoral college system does not bear sole responsibility for the weakness in the U.S.democracy. On the contrary, it has reduced polarization and limited election chaos. Therefore, electoral college abolishment is not an effective fix to the democratic weakness in the U.S.

The electoral college system discourages polarization. Considering its possible spit from the popular votes, presidential candidates must aim beyond a simple majority of 50.1%. They must appeal to more moderate and swing voters, which can temper extreme and radical views. In practice, it prevents both parties from only energizing their bases in deep-blue or deep-red states and forces them to build coalitions. Such a strategy has promoted several consensus candidates, from Ronald Reagan’s landslide to Bill Clinton’s “third-way coalition.” [1] Without the electoral college, one may witness a GOP oriented around Texas and a Democratic party geared towards California. The results of such a strategy would further divide the country and radicalize U.S. politics. It could fuel future populist candidates, ones differing in politics from but similar in approaches to Donald Trump. Therefore, while the electoral college does not rule out the rise of populism and polarization, it plays a role in tempering it.

The electoral college limits weaknesses in the U.S. democratic structure. The 2020 election exposed almost every flaw in the U.S. electoral system. The Republican Party engaged in substantial voter suppression efforts before the election. After his defeat, former President Donald Trump utilized state legislatures, courts, state election officials, and Congress to overturn the election. The electoral college’s prolonged procedure does play a role in the chaotic episode. It implements roles for various levels of government after Election Day and allows for procedural disruption. However, these represent more the byproducts of the system rather than the system itself. Without the electoral college, such disputes could become national, instead of the state-specific disputes in previous elections. [2] Without the current system, the close 2000 election could have gone beyond the state of Florida. Al Gore could have called for a national-level recount of votes. The 2020 election could have seen Donald Trump intervening in the electoral process of every state. Therefore, the electoral college does not bear significant responsibility for the democratic weakness in the U.S. On the contrary, it has played a role in damage control by limiting the potential disputes to a small number of states.

The U.S. election system survived an extraordinary stress test in the 2020 election circle. The need for change cannot be overstated. However, the electoral college represents an obvious, but a poor target of the reform. It has played significant roles in maintaining the electoral process in the U.S. Any talks of abolishment must take into account such nuances.

For these reasons, the electoral college system has a raison d’etat.

[1]. Douthat, Ross. 2019. "A Case For The Electoral College". The New York Times, , 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/opinion/electoral-college.html.

[2]. Spilerman, Seymour. 2020. "The Case For Keeping The Electoral College". The Washington Post, , 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/29/electoral-college-recount-meltdown/.