Activists, with the aid of misguided state legislators, have begun to gain ground in the states, with NPV arising as a serious threat to the stability of our presidential election process. In this case, 19 state legislatures are currently controlled solely by Democrats. After a long battle in Florida Bush won the state narrowly, giving him an Electoral College victory of 271 to 266 over Al Gore. We will focus on elections in the 20th and 21st centuries. List of the Pros of Abolishing the Electoral College 1. If that occurs, the court might provide states additional guidance on just how much leeway they have to impact the Electoral College vote that decides the presidency of the United States. Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Ron Paul, and Faith Spotted Eagle received one each. The correct number is 102. We survived. Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center Candidates had to go to each state to talk about what they wanted to do for the country because there was no other way to let people know what was happening. Why? And finally, Myth 3: The Electoral College protects small states. So far, 15 states plus the District of Columbia have joined in for a total of 196 electoral votes, just 74 more. For example, in 1967, 58 percent favored its abolition, while in 1981, 75 percent of . In winner-take-all states, all electoral votes cast for the state are assigned to the candidate who gets the most electoral votes. 61% of Americans Support Abolishing Electoral College by Megan Brenan Story Highlights 61% prefer amending Constitution to use popular vote to elect president 89% of Democrats, 23% of Republicans. Why? The great problems with our presidential selection system today stem from the haphazard way we choose the two major party presidential candidates. It should be noted, there is debate about the permissibility of such a proposal and its going into effect would likely face a flurry of lawsuits. Could Washington administer a national recount in the event of a close result? Given that a change would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures, it is not going to happen. 2? As we all know only too well, in practice this archaic system means that the person who wins the most votes may not win the election. 326 Galvez Street According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., if the Electoral College of the United States was abolished, the collapse of the already weakened two-party political system would be fast tracked; resulting in multiplication of splinter parties. Spend some time moving states into the Biden and Trump circles and make notes about what you notice and wonder. Younger voters also tended to support abolishing the Electoral College. Both times in 2000 and 2016 it was the Republican candidate who got fewer votes but ended up in the White House. There were two additional votes for Sanders that were invalidated in Minnesota and one for Kasich in Colorado. There can be distinctive advantages to one party in a decade where three election cycles are possible. 1. The issue that could make Joe Biden unelectable is not in his control and is a far greater threat to his re-election than any single policy question. Is the Electoral College a Problem? In 2016, Donald Trump won the White House by earning a majority of electoral votes, even though almost three million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. Places like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Reagan would almost make a clean sweep in 1984 as well, taking 525 of 538 electoral votes and only losing Minnesota and DC. There will always be a concern about the tyranny of the majority in the United States. 2. 2023 BDG Media, Inc. All rights reserved. In the 20th century there were 25 presidential elections and none of them resulted in an Electoral College winner who lost the popular vote. It also means the road to any kind of reform is fraught with political potholes, particularly when the removal of such a system clearly benefits one party at the expense of another. The most popular alternative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). {{currentYear}} American Bar Association, all rights reserved. . Redirecting to https://m.startribune.com/one-clear-result-of-the-2020-election-at-last-let-s-abolish-the-electoral-college/. That means centrist ideas tend to be the ones that receive the most traction instead of the individual priorities of platforms on the extreme left or right. These Americans, chosen for loyalty to their political party, will vote for the presidential candidate who won their states popular vote. Each of those states has Democratic control of the state legislature. Plenty. As far as the 2016 election is concerned, Hillary Clinton would still be the likely winner if the Electoral College didn't exist. Having the person who loses the popular vote win the presidency will seriously undermine the legitimacy of our elections. And, as our colleague Bill Galston has written, the Electoral College continues to be a ticking time bomb. In the 2020 presidential election a shift of just 45,000 votes in three states, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona could have shattered Americans belief in the legitimacy of their political system by creating a tie in the Electoral College and sending the election to the House of Representatives. Electoral vote totals will equal 538. Its possible the Supreme Court will ultimately decide who gets to decide how individual electors vote. As we begin the third decade of the 21st century, change benefits the Democrats. The winner of an election should be the person who gets the most votes. Stanford, CA 94305-6105 Theyre swing states. Whether youre Republican or Democrat, your vote probably doesnt count the way it should. If you live in a state where youre in the political minority, your vote is effectively erased. This Student Opinion prompt and a related Lesson of the Day will prepare students to participate in our live panel discussion about the Electoral College, on Oct. 22 at 1 p.m. Eastern. FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast have predicted. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. Every vote matters, commented Senator Elizabet Warren (D-Mass) in an early campaign stop in Mississippi in 2019, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.. However, it is possible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. The only difference is that in this unique structure, the voice of the minority can actually shout down the desires of the majority. Only two Republicans voted for someone other than Trump and Pence. The effort in Congress to overhaul America's election system followed the contentious 1968 presidential contest. What Is the Electoral College? That is not to say the Electoral College is without its advantages. So what would happen if we got rid of the Electoral College? The current structure limits Americans from pushing in this direction even though candidates tend to visit swing states more often. US election 2020. First, there's the Constitutional problem. The Electoral College thus presents democratic risks without serving any of its original purposes. But explaining exactly how it does this remains a mystery. There have been three: John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush. As discussed above, the only practical way of ending the Electoral College is by changing the ways in which states use the popular vote to award electors to the presidential candidates. Iowa farmers might lose out to California union workers since their population numbers are larger. Popular vote is a direct vote. In other words, the Electoral College isnt sacred, and theres no reason we cant change how it works today. In a polarized political environment, such an institutional structure remains entrenched. That probably promotes a more national and less regional vision. And it confines vote-counting disputes to just one, or maybe a few, states. Is the way Americans choose the president undemocratic and unfair? **Here, we treat the District of Columbia as a single congressional district (as the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution does for the purposes of the Electoral College). TheNational Archives reportsthat over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College without any becoming law. Many of them were unhappy with the results. Jacob Levy, of McGill University, disagreed with that argument. Despite California having millions of more people living in the state compared to Wyoming, the weight of a vote is 30% less. Article V sets up the manner by which an amendment is passed. It also prevents candidates from going into states where the electorate typically votes for the other party. Why, or why not? Debate renewed in 2016 after theelectionof the fifth U.S. president who won the presidency despite losing the popular vote. A plan to scrap the Electoral College via constitutional amendment would not pass in the current environment. LIASSON: It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, so that's not going to happen. Nonetheless, it is likely the most viable alternative to the current Electoral College system. As American leadership falters, scholars say, autocrats are on the rise. ), and the big state-small state divide no longer animates our politics, if it ever did. Although there are some advantages to this system, the disadvantages have been highlighted in recent elections. Do you agree with Mr. Wegman that we should change how the Electoral College works to ensure that the popular vote chooses the president? For one thing, slavery. Of the 700 attempts to fix or abolish the electoral college, this one nearly succeeded In 1969, Congress almost approved a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college,. Trump made a similar argument earlier this week, warning that "smaller states & then entire Midwest would end up losing all power.". But the real interests of small-state voters are never determined by the relative size of the population of their states. In his recent Op-Ed The Electoral College Will Destroy America, Mr. Wegman provides further evidence to support his claim that the Electoral College is unfair: The Electoral College as it functions today is the most glaring reminder of many that our democracy is not fair, not equal and not representative. In part, that is because theElectoral Collegeis constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment. The Electoral College consists of an elector selection, a group of people who will meet and vote for President and Vice President based on the results of their states election. Polls from FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast have predicted. The following table shows how this would have changed the outcome in two contested elections of the 21st century, and how a third would have remained the same. If you submit a question as a comment on this article, we might use it during the live event. Thats not true either. The two-party system solves the fractured vote problem more effectively than the Electoral College ever did, and the electors never exercised genuine independence. The only states that matter to either party are the battleground states especially bigger ones like Florida and Pennsylvania, where a swing of a few thousand or even a few hundred votes can shift the entire pot of electors from one candidate to the other. It doesnt. This issue exists in the Electoral College when the rural states face off with the urban ones. Warren says she wants to get rid of the Electoral College, and vote for president using a national popular vote. No other advanced democracy in the world uses anything like it, and for good reason. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/learning/is-the-electoral-college-a-problem-does-it-need-to-be-fixed.html. This imbalance is primarily a 21st century phenomenon and it could, of course, change in the years to come as some states grow and other states shrink in population. This toolkit provides guidance and resources to those associated with community colleges who are interested in either creating a pathway program to law school or enhancing an existing program. The main problem with the Electoral College today is not, as both its supporters and detractors believe, the disproportionate power it gives smaller states. The truth is . It is within a states authority under Article II, Section 1 to impose a fine on electors for failing to uphold their pledge, the court said in an 8-1 opinion. That, critics say, means devaluing the votes of many non-white voters too. It took time for people to learn what was happening in the nations capital. John Kasich, a Republican, even though Colorado law required electors to cast their votes for state-winner Hillary Clinton, a Democrat. The winner of the Electoral College vote is usually the candidate who has won the popular vote. Critics of the system would argue that the elections of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are evidence that this impact is no longer present in U.S. politics. Sticking to the electoral college format allows us to use electors as intended instead of relying on all of the votes counting. In the interactive diagram The Battleground States Biden and Trump Need to Win 270, you are able to build your own coalition of states to see how either candidate, President Trump or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., can win the election. 3) The Electoral . But its worth taking a closer look at arguments in favor of keeping the status quo. Seventy percent of Americans between the ages of 18-29 said that the president should be chosen through a popular vote model, while just 56 percent of those over the age of 65 agreed. When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it compels the state to award its electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won in that state. While there are two different means to amend the founding document, this country has always used the same route: a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, followed by the ratification of 3/4ths of the states. That meant more power for those states under an Electoral College system, and slave states didnt want to give up that power. As the U.S. Government Archives likes to say, the Electoral College is a process, not a place. This structure was placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers of the United States as a compromise between having a vote in Congress to elect the President and the election of a candidate by qualified citizens. George W. Bush won the Electoral College in 2000 even though he received 0.5% less of the popular vote against Al Gore. Out of those visits, almost 70% of them happened in only four states: North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The way it gets implemented is the result of dozens of state laws, which evolved over time as the country settled into a two-party system. The Electoral College has elected a president who did not win the popular vote twice in the past 20 years, in 2000 and 2016. So it's possible for a candidate to win more votes overall across the country than a rival but not be inaugurated because of insufficient support from the Electoral College: a scenario that has occurred twice in the past two decades. The interests of the minority would no longer receive protection. Myth No. Even if all 25 of the states that Mr. Biden won in 2020 were to ratify such an amendment, nine additional states that President Trump won would need to ratify it as well. The following table shows how this would have changed the outcome in the two contested elections of the 21st century and includes 2004 for comparison. There are three basic arguments in favor of the system the framers of the Constitution gave us, with little sense of how it would actually work. Some laws simply state that electors must vote for the candidate of the party they represent; others require electors to sign an oath or a pledge. The NPV would effectively abolish the Electoral College and co-opt even those states who did not join the compact into accepting an electoral regime they never agreed to or approved. Two closely watched cases arising from the 2016 electoral process, however, might provide the justices with an opportunity to do just that. In a truly national election, parties and candidates would have the incentive to turn out their votes wherever they were, fostering a deeper sense of engagement across the whole population. James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, was very disturbed by the state winner-take-all rule, which he considered one of the central flaws of the Electoral College as it took shape in the early 19th century. Five times in our history, presidential candidates who have won more votes than their opponent have still lost the election. As far as the 2016 election is concerned, Hillary Clinton would still be the likely winner if the Electoral College didn't exist. Because the Electoral College is based on the structure of state populations and representation in the House, some people have a vote that carries more weight per delegate than others. I think it would make more sense to split the electoral votes based on the state-wide vote so if a state has 10 electoral votes and the election goes 60% to 40%, the candidates gets 6 votes and 4 votes respectively. It said that the Colorado secretary of state erred in removing an elector who cast his vote for then-Ohio Gov. "How would that work?" Its no wonder the candidates fixate on issues that matter to specific groups of voters in swing states, like fracking in Pennsylvania This is my 13th visit. or prescription drug benefits in Florida. "Precisely what it does is proportionately advantages where the people are," Levy said. Do you agree? Do you think any of these arguments, or others, are convincing reasons for preserving the Electoral College as it stands now? Find all our Student Opinion questions in this column. Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? However, in the five presidential elections of the 21st century, two ended up with the winner of the popular vote losing the Electoral College. Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. Think about it. "It really does over-represent some sparsely populated states, and it provides some skew and bias to our system that I just don't think is healthy anymore," said Paul Gronke, a political scientist at Reed College. 7. Polls from FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast have predicted Clinton receiving a majority popular vote of 49.7 percent, with Trump behind at 43.3 percent. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke said there is a "lot of wisdom" in the idea and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., also said she's open to it. When you know that one state will vote the same way in every election, there is no need to visit that place. In 1892, the court upheld inMcPherson v. Blackerthat Congress can set the date nationally for the Electoral College to meet, but it also said that the states could determine how electors were apportioned and chosen. It would stop the requirement to redistribute the electoral votes. "The game will not be any longer to be a [politician who is] liberal but be able to appeal to a rural Ohioan," he said. 11. But it's possible the candidate with the most votes from the public won't be the winner. And so each Electoral College vote in a small state like Delaware or Wyoming is worth more than an Electoral College vote in a big state like California. Under the current system, voters in each state cast their ballots for electors, of which 270 are necessary to win. Abolishing the Electoral College: Since the year 2000, there have been five presidential elections. In part, that is because the Electoral College is constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment. Another 15 legislatures with varying degrees of Republican control would also need to ratify such an amendment for the Electoral College to be removed. Still, the advantages are uncertain and relatively minor. The chances of a recount would increase dramatically with election. This is the result of an amazing technological revolution, but what does it have to do with the Electoral College? Despite political challenges to reforming the manner in which the United States selects its president, there is danger in maintaining the status quo. Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President? Supporters of a national popular vote argue something must be done; the Electoral College disproportionately inflates the influence of rural areas while undervaluing the votes of cities. Enslaved people couldnt vote, but they were still counted toward the slave states representation in Congress. Despite what you may have learned in school, it was not the product of careful design by brilliant men. Today about 1.3% of those employed in the United States work directly in agriculture, and they manage to feed the entire country and beyond. Abolishing the Electoral College seems to be the next logical step in that process. hide caption. 1. The pact raises questions of its own for democracy: It creates a situation in which voters in, for example, Colorado, may cast most of their votes for the Democrat in a presidential race but the state might wind up giving its electors to the Republican depending on the national outcome. But swing states distort our national priorities, even when the president wins the popular vote. This is the heart of the problem with the Electoral College. Its complicated, outdated, unrepresentative in a word, undemocratic. And the reasons people think we need to keep the Electoral College the way it is, theyre all wrong. If the Electoral College was eliminated, the power to elect the President would rest solely in the hands of a few of our largest states and cities, greatly diminishing the voice of smaller populated states. Christine Stenglein and Saku Gopinath provided research support for this post. Keeping the electoral college restricts the voting to acknowledged states only. [1] Over the years some of them, so-called faithless electors, have deviated from this norm but in 29 states and the District of Colombia state laws exist which bind the electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. Because the Electoral College is based on the structure of state populations and representation in the House, some people have a vote that carries more weight per delegate than others. This is just one way the legacy of slavery still taints our politics today. Abolishing the Electoral College stops swing states from having sway in the election. By 2019, the median state was Kentucky with 4,467,673 which made it 11% of the population of California, the biggest state in the union with 39,512,223 people. And even though it is widely acknowledged that the Electoral College is a ticking time bomb that could seriously erode American democracy, none of these attempts has been successful. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. All parts of the country would not be involved in the selection of the president. 6. Why? Still, there would be some major changes to our elections if we abolished the Electoral College. And while the founding fathers implemented this voting process as a way to "preserve the sense of the people" in other words, to go against the popular vote's wishes if the elite few chosen to be electors felt that the winner was unqualified or unfit most states now abide by a "winner-takes-all" method of distributing votes that renders the original purpose moot. In fact, lets tally up all the votes cast for president between 1932 and 2008. A second variation would be to award two Electoral College votes from each state to the winner of the national popular vote and award the remaining electors to the winner of each congressional district (CD). As a result, most are considered safe, that is, comfortably in hand for one party or the other. Do you support this movement? Voting By Mail Is On The Rise, But Could Alleged N.C. Election Fraud Change That? Gronke asks. As we can see from questions posed in two respectable polls, Pew and Gallup, in spite of the fact that majorities support change it is Democrats who support it and Republicans who oppose it. For years, a majority of Americans have opposed the Electoral College. 4. If such an amendment were to pass Congress, defeat in the states is likely. If this system were to be abolished, then every vote counted would have the exact same weight in the final tally. Would the federal government get into the business of administering the elections, or leave that up to state and local officials, as it does today? In the current Congress, this would require every Democratic House member to vote in favor of such an amendment and be joined by 59 Republicans and every Democratic Senator to be joined by 19 of their Republican colleagues. The state also reelected their Republican governor in 2020. In each state, electors meet after the presidential election on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December and cast their votes for president and vice president in separate ballots. That means the major party that can maintain its base could win elections without a clear majority. The general threshold that an election result must reach to trigger an automatic recount is a difference of 0.5% of the vote or less. What would happen if the Electoral College was abolished? The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests.

How To Revive A Dead Disposable Vape, Articles W