On October 20, Moraine Valley Community College held a virtual conference to discuss the Electoral College. Kevin Navratil, an associate professor in political science and the Democracy Commitment coordinator, hosted the webinar. Here is a briefing of that conference. You can also view the entire conference here.
Electoral College: How does it work?
The United States of America runs a unique presidential electoral system that isn’t shared with any other nation: the Electoral College (EC). Established in the Constitution by America’s founding fathers, the system works to allow each state a determined number of electoral votes reflective of that state’s Congressional seats, which in turn represents the state’s majority vote. There are a total of 538 EC votes between all 50 states and the District of Columbia; a candidate will need 270 of those votes, or 50% plus one, to win the election. This means that a nationwide popular vote is not a system that exists in the U.S. In fact, nearly every state follows a “winner-takes-all” policy – excluding Maine and Nebraska, which run a district system – that allows a candidate to take every EC vote of a state, so long as they won most of its votes.
The United States of America runs a unique presidential electoral system that isn’t shared with any other nation: the Electoral College (EC). Established in the Constitution by America’s founding fathers, the system works to allow each state a determined number of electoral votes reflective of that state’s Congressional seats, which in turn represents the state’s majority vote. There are a total of 538 EC votes between all 50 states and the District of Columbia; a candidate will need 270 of those votes, or 50% plus one, to win the election. This means that a nationwide popular vote is not a system that exists in the U.S. In fact, nearly every state follows a “winner-takes-all” policy – excluding Maine and Nebraska, which run a district system – that allows a candidate to take every EC vote of a state, so long as they won most of its votes.
Though the EC hasn’t been updated much since it was first established, there are some advantages to it. By allowing each state their own representation in the EC, it forces candidates to compete in multiple regions of the United States rather than dominating one section, and therefore, attempts to prevent regionalism.
This process also helps maintain a stable two-party system, with a “winner-takes-all” policy to ensure that a party’s platform is necessarily broad and inclusive to many demographics: this ideology can be referred to as “Big Tent.” Professor Navritil explained, “Because you don’t get any points for second place, because you don’t get any Electoral College votes for coming up,” [with a 40% to 35% to 25% split between popular votes won in a state] “only the candidate who gets 40% of the vote, … [will] get all the Electoral College votes” for that state. Additionally, Navratil stated some scholars feel this “gives third-party candidates an incentive to coalesce with the other two major parties” and “prevents radical fringe third parties from being competitive.”
In favor of the Electoral College: How is it beneficial?
Counting up each individual vote can be inefficient and the EC addresses this issue. The EC system allows small states to have an impact on the elections by giving every state a fixed number of representation based on population – 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative – so the lowest number of EC votes for any state or voting district is three. The electoral system is designed to be as fair and equitable as possible given the large population of the United States and disparities in population density across it.
Arguments against the Electoral College: How is it disadvantageous?
All models, by their nature, are reductionist and the EC is no exception. When the system was originally established, it was the first time the US would be electing a president. However, many people were denied the right to vote (only white male landowners had the right to vote), the process of writing this section of the Constitution was rushed and compromised partly due to fatigue of the convention attendees and the need for ratification, and its original idea did not hold true for more than three elections when the EC was tied and the election was determined by the House of Representatives. With a rocky start, one could argue that the EC does not coincide with our key values. It violates the one person-one vote principle and gives more power per electoral vote to less populated states. For instance, in comparing the two most populated states – Texas and California to the two least populated states of Wyoming and Vermont, and dividing the total population into the EC votes allotted to each, it deflates the voting power of California and Texas by “⅓ to ¼”of the power in Wyoming and Vermont, argued Navratil in pointing out some of the flaws in the current system. Wyoming has three electoral votes representing an average of 192,000 residents each for a total population of about 600,000, yet each of California’s 55 electoral votes represents an average of 718,000 residents. Also, there is no vote granted for the estimated 4 million citizens in the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Mariana. The population in those territories therefore is over 4 times Wyoming’s population, yet they have no voice in who becomes President.
It also violates the democratic principle of majority rule. In the years 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, the candidate who won the popular vote was not elected President; that’s about 9% of the elections. This disadvantage begs the question of legitimacy: What does it mean when a candidate who wins the popular vote in the election did not win the highest office?
On top of that, many states are ignored during campaign events. In 2016, 96% of the campaign events happened in only 12 states; and the majority of that in only four swing states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida. In doing so, candidates have lost focus on national issues and instead put attention towards the issues of these swing states. Heavily populated states like California, Texas, New York, and Illinois were largely ignored in 2016, mostly because of a strong previous support of one party or the other. Conversely, less populated states like Montana, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas were also ignored, partly due to the fact that they also lean one toward one party or another, but also because many only glean three EC votes, which some candidates may view as expendable or not worth the resources needed to send an advance planning team, set up an event, and then travel to that particular state. Also, though the Electoral College is meant to prevent regionalism, it doesn’t do so effectively. There are many states that are known to be Democratic or known to be Republican, and that trend stays relatively stable over the years. To “flip” a state from its norm can be a gargantuan process for a presidential candidate. These states that are largely ignored have been labeled as “fly-over states,” or ones in which candidates fly over them in their campaign planes to other battleground or swing states.
To address these concerns, some solutions may be implemented to alter this system. One would be amending the constitution, though it may prove to be difficult. However, after the 1968 election between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon – which almost led to it being decided by the House because the votes were so close to a tie – the American Bar Association (ABA) recommended a popular vote system. It was passed 338-70 in the House and was supported by President Nixon, but failed in the Senate. A Republican from Indiana, Birch Bayh stated on May 18, 1966 that “should be elected directly by the people, for it is the people of the United States to whom he is responsible.”
What to do next: Can we implement changes?
A second possibility, though unlikely, is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. When the Constitution was implemented, each House member represented about 6,000 people; by 1910, when the number of representatives was capped at 435, the average was 200,000 people per representative. Today, it varies state to state, but “the average is 700,000” according to Navratil. If we kept the same ratio as 100 years ago, we’d have roughly 5,000 members of the House. Navratil suggested executing what is called the “Wyoming Rule.” By taking the least populated state of Wyoming, roughly 600,000 people, “and using that as a measurement of apportionment for the House of Representatives” explained Navratil. The Wyoming Rule would add approximately 115 new members to the House based on the 2010 Census figures currently in use. Illinois would gain an additional 5 representatives under this rule.
Yet another solution is granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It would add four Senators and at least two new representatives to Congress, and bring the total of EC votes up to at least 541 (D.C. is already included in the total 538).
As mentioned before, Maine and Nebraska follow a district system. These two states have adjusted how their electoral college votes are allocated by the winner in each representative district; A District system would eliminate the winner-takes-all model, so that states that have concentrations of one political party in different parts of the state would not receive all the votes from the entire state, but instead have them distributed according to which candidate won the popular vote in each house district. Using a district model might also use percentages of the popular vote. In Illinois, Republicans have earned about 40% of the vote in recent years, meaning heavily Democratic areas in Chicago, Cook County and some collar counties outweigh the largely Republican rural areas of the state.. Under a proportional plan, 40% of Illinois EC votes would go to the Republican nominee. In this way, the system could engage more voters to participate in the process, help voters feel that their choices make a difference, and reflect our changing values and society.
The last solution Navratil touched on is the national Popular Vote Compact which has already been enacted by 16 states of various sizes. (Illinois is in that compact.) It specifies that these 16 states will grant all their EC votes to the national winner of the popular vote, even if their own state voted in the majority for another candidate. Currently, this is not in use because the 16 states represent only 196 EC votes. They would need enough states that have at least a combined 74 EC votes in order to implement this change, technically “an end-run around amending the Constitution” according to Navratil. (See more information on the Compact here.)
The bottom line: the Electoral College will still decide the 2020 Presidential election. Where we as the United States decide to go from this point forward is yet to be determined.
Isacc Velasquez contributed to this article.
