The United States was founded — at least in theory — on the principle that every individual has equal worth. We are no more or less than our personal desire to conquer each opportunity with as much might as we can muster.
So, if that’s the case, why, then, do we have an Electoral College, which enables only 538 people to vote for the president?
The Electoral College has presented confusion since at least 1824, when John Quincy Adams won the presidential election through electors in the House of Representatives despite losing both the popular and electoral vote.
In fact, “misfire” elections such as this, in which a candidate wins the presidential election despite losing the popular vote, have happened six times before: 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000 and 2016.
Even when an election does not turn out to be a misfire, the Electoral College still prevents individuals from directly choosing the president. This is quite obviously not democracy, and measures to abolish — or at least amend — the Electoral College have been proposed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Why, then, do we still hold on to it?
Although the principle of every vote counting is intuitively enticing, the Electoral College does help to preserve our democracy in a way.
The U.S. has always been defined by its constant struggle of balancing federal and state power, but the Electoral College prevents any state-by-state confusion by centralizing voting. This centralized system allows for a quicker, more definitive result, whereas a different system with the current state-by-state legal variations in voting would cause confusion and inefficiency.
Another benefit of the Electoral College is its ability to protect against what is referred to as the tyranny of the majority — a situation in which the rights of minority groups are overlooked and forgotten by the majority.
Our Founding Fathers feared the possibility of a tyrannical government forming if one majority were to mobilize against a minority group, or groups, so they implemented several measures of checks and balances to prevent this. The Electoral College was established as one of those measures.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue it protects the rights of those living in smaller, less-populated states. Without it, they say, presidential candidates would not care about farming in Iowa or the opioid crisis in New Hampshire.
But is this really true, and do these issues matter more than, say, forest fires in California or gun violence in New York City?
The way the Electoral College is currently set up helps protect the minority rights of people living in rural areas, but does nothing to help minority groups who lack a local majority anywhere gain rights that have been denied them. In fact, the current division of voting power has actually been used to further oppress minority groups seeking equality, such as Black Americans during the civil rights movement.
In giving a stronger voice to the less-populated states, the Electoral College subsequently denies cries for help from densely populated areas. At the same time, it gives only a small boost to less-populated states and does nothing to ensure the elected candidates will continue to give attention to these states following the election.
Majority support of the Electoral College is also quickly diminishing.
Sixty-one percent of Americans support a national popular vote, with 23 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Democrats supporting the measure, according to a September Gallup poll.
We have documented proof that a national popular vote can be problematic, but it would at least be in line with what the majority of Americans want.
What we should strive for is a voting system that can simultaneously satisfy the needs of our country as whole and as individual parts. The Electoral College in its current form does not function in this way, but we must also be wary of forgetting the benefits it provides.
The truth is this: any form of voting, like any form of government, is imperfect. Our current voting institution harbors many issues, but even if we were to implement a new and improved system, some issues would remain and others would arise.
All in all, the primary focus should be ensuring every voice carries an equitable weight through our voting system.
