The Electoral College Needs to Change, Not Go
May 22, 2019
With the upcoming election, some candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren, have made a promise to get rid of the electoral college once elected. This new political trend isn’t only being favored by Democrats, but it’s also favored by President Donald J. Trump. The President has also voiced his possible support for the idea. This new viewpoint likely stems from two Republican presidents being elected in the last 20 years without winning the popular vote. Elections these days are mostly won by heavy campaigning in states known as “swing states,” which are states that typically vote either way. What most people don’t realize is that states today are becoming more ambivalent in their political views, and it wasn’t just Florida and Texas that insured Trump’s victory in the 2016 election.
According to The Washington Post, the main states that Trump campaigned in were Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. “Trump won those states by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes.” These traditional blue states added up to 46 electoral votes that he couldn’t have won the election without. My point is that these states are part of what was called the “blue wall” and weren’t expected to be won by Trump. As more states become less grounded in their political views in the future, very few will be considered an easy win. Who knows, maybe if Clinton did the same to a few red states, she might’ve won.
The solutions to the imperfections of the electoral college lie in a system used by two states, Nebraska and Maine. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that don’t pool all of their electoral votes into the candidate that won the popular vote. These states use something called the congressional district method. This method splits the state into districts of which are each given one electoral vote. That electoral vote goes to the popular candidate in that district. Also, in these states, there are more electoral votes than there are districts, so the remaining votes go to the overall popular vote of the state. I think this system is best for the country because it not only better represents state interests as a whole, but also the interests of smaller communities as well.
We all know that California is a very strong Democratic state. However, what you might not know is that 39% of this extensive population voted Republican in the 2016 election. These voices were not heard in the final counts because of the “winner-take-all” system used by most states. At the same time, a popular vote would result in highly populated cities such as New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco drowning out the voices of less populated areas.
The fact is that neither our current electoral college or a direct democratic vote can represent the country’s needs as well as the congressional district method can, especially in today’s political climate. America needs to change with the times, but we need to do it in our own way which preserves our status as a Democratic-Republic and represents all American lifestyles.
otto • May 22, 2019 at 4:31 PM
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.
In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.
Nationwide, there were only maybe 35 “battleground” districts that were expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
The National Popular Vote bill is a way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.