The Electoral College (EC) in the US has been a consistent point of controversy in Presidential elections, granting five Presidents the White House, despite losing the popular vote. Trump, as a beneficiary himself, has famously called the system both “a disaster for democracy” and “genius”. Recent polling reported 63% of Americans would prefer a system whereby the winner of the Presidential election wins the most votes nationally. So, how does the EC work and which of Trump’s statements is correct?
Electoral College explained
The EC can be more confusing than one of Joe Biden’s speeches, so I’ll set it out in layman’s terms. It is a “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) voting system, with each state being worth a set number of electors. The number of electoral votes each state has depends on its representation in Congress, with it being calculated by the number of Senators and House Representatives within a state.
People indirectly vote for their choice of President by voting for a ‘slate of electors’ who promise to vote for the person’s preferred candidate. In most states, as it says on the tin, the candidate with the majority of votes in a state’s polling wins all the state’s electors.
To win the presidency, a candidate needs a majority of electoral votes, 270+ out of 538. The outcome of a Presidential election, unlike a UK general election, does not determine the strength of the President while in office, as the position’s powers are laid out within the US Constitution. This is embodied by the US federal way of governance, which separates the power of governance across three bodies. However, the result of congressional elections can impact a President’s political power. Even so, the control they have over their party’s congresspeople is largely left up to mere loyalty.
To compare this to the UK’s system, think of Boris Johnson’s bumbling vs Biden’s stumbling speeches, you may be able to understand Johnson a bit more clearly, but both still baffle you all the same.
Why do Americans want change?
Now we know what the EC is, it’s time to tackle why 63% of Americans want it changed. To begin with, ‘swing states‘ – states which do not consistently turn red or blue – have a disproportionate amount of influence on the outcome of elections as they commonly decide the result. A light spot of tactical campaigning is encouraged because of this, represented by the prioritisation of swing states by candidates, as they direct the majority of their visits, resources and advertising funding to these areas. For example, in the 2020 election, over two-thirds of campaign visits by both Trump and Joe Biden occurred in the swing states.
The “winner-takes-all” system in most states encourages tactical voting, where voters feel compelled to choose between the two main parties, with some approaching elections with the mentality of seeing the party they vote for as the “lesser of two evils” rather than their true preference.
Smaller states also suffer from an influence issue. For example, a Wyoming resident’s vote is more influential per electoral vote than a Californian resident’s due to the smaller population. This disparity can make the EC seem undemocratic, as the majority can be ignored when the winner of the popular vote is not elected. This was seen in 2016 after Hilary Clinton won 3 million more votes than Trump yet failed to gain office.
These issues disincentivise voter participation, particularly in non-swing states, as citizens may feel undervalued. This creates a system similar to a class structure within elections, with those living in swing states or lesser populated areas holding more power than those who do not, enabling an environment where political and cultural polarisation between states can fester.
Working as intended
How on earth can a system with these awful flaws be allowed to operate in the world’s ‘bastion of democracy’? Well, it’s actually operating as the Founding Fathers intended. It aims to protect the interests of smaller states and rural areas while reinforcing the federal structure, giving power to the states in the election of the President. Moreover, the EC has provided a stable transition of power from one President to another for the entire history of the nation, providing a clear result. While Herr – I mean, Donald Trump – did threaten this with the January 6 Capitol attack, this wasn’t the fault of the electoral system.
So, is it a “disaster”? Not quite. Is it “genius” then? Not necessarily. While a national popular vote-based system may iron out some issues raised, the system is efficient. It may favour some states, but the US would still suffer from this issue, likely manifesting in larger states instead. The major problems swing states face are commonly nationwide, compounded by candidates still needing to pander to their base in order to keep their safe states, well, safe.
Nevertheless, fixing what’s not broken – but kind of is – with a new popular vote-based system may allow for the strengthening of US democracy. Did November 5 prove a “disaster”, or did its “genius” shine through? I’m sure Trump would agree with his latter statement.
