In Defense of the Electoral College
Photo Courtesy: Jon Burpee via Flickr
Many Europeans, far removed from the domestic realities of US politics, protest the existence of the Electoral College at every US presidential election. Many criticise the distance it creates between the democratic principle of ‘representing the people’ and the reality of the system, or its disproportionate representation across each state. Many simply attack its supposed tilt towards the GOP.
Opposition to the current electoral system is understandable. Since the beginning of US democracy, five presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. In both the 2000 and 2016 elections, the GOP candidate won an election they did not get the most votes in.
Thanks to how electoral votes are calculated for each state, an electoral vote in Wyoming currently represents 195,000 individuals, whereas it represents 763 000 in Texas. Many have argued that this process harms democracy. These statistics raise questions about the system’s respect for the equality of every citizen’s vote and the “will of the people”. Though those arguments may hold, they conveniently disregard the foundational context in which the system was built.
The importance of the states have been embedded in American politics and life since the country’s founding. In 1776, delegates representing the populations from each of the 13 then-colonies signed the Declaration of Independence, the republic’s founding document. To prevent states with larger populations from dominating the presidential office, and to ensure victors represented a larger range of states' interests, the Electoral College was formed. Certifying that a variety of interests and realities are represented by those chosen to lead the country, this institution did away with the illusion of a homogenous US.
The Electoral College has been significant in raising regional issues to the national stage. The passage of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, the US’ first antitrust legislation combating the effects of railroad monopolies on farmers, can be partly attributed to the electoral system. This still holds true today. Each of this year's seven key battleground states have brought regional issues to the campaign. The most evident issue is that of deindustrialisation, especially in the rust belt, with both candidates proposing measures to boost employment and revive declining towns and cities in the industrial heartland.
Those that hold the Electoral College accountable for ‘boosting the GOP’ may have fallen prey to a biassed argument disproved by new statistics. Though it is true that both presidents in the 21st century unelected by the popular vote were GOP candidates, three of the five most underrepresented states in the Electoral College voted Republican in 2020: Texas, Florida and Ohio. The reality is not homogenous among the most overrepresented states either.
It is often argued, assuming that the interests and voting patterns of rural and urban voters are completely disparate, that the Electoral College gives significantly more power to rural voters. Though some rural voters may benefit, this argument’s assumed political context falls short of reality through its simplicity. This ‘tyranny of the minority’ concern was nonexistent when Bill Clinton won in non-metropolitan America in 1996. It is argued that rural voters realigned with the GOP in response to significant economic hardship, a stark reality the US faces post-recession. The solution for the Democrats here might be to broaden their electoral base, not the electoral system.
Though us Europeans are justified in our concern over US election results, those worried about the proportional qualities of electoral systems might be better off discussing the European Council and its’ version of the Electoral College.
The debate over the Electoral College, and its’ future, is up to Americans. Whether the system is kept, replaced by a nationwide popular-vote system, or if states themselves adopt proportional systems, it is likely to require an amendment to the constitution. While this conversation takes place, we as Europeans should spend less time arguing over ‘why it should not be’ and more time understanding why it is.