The president of the United States is probably the single most powerful elected office in the world. The President is the head of a state of one of the most influential nations on earth and holds power of the US military and economy in many ways beyond the influence of other governing bodies. As such, one would expect that this office would be held by the person who wins the majority in an election. Of course, that isn’t exactly how it works. Instead the US has created a system called the electoral college. The way the electoral college operates is inexplicably complicated. Each state is granted a certain number of electoral votes/electors. The number of electors is determined by adding the number of seats they have in the senate and the house of representatives. This sets a baseline of 3 electoral votes for each state as every state has two senators and at least one representative. If a candidate wins a majority in a state they receive the “electoral votes” that state has (with some exceptions).
This system has many severe flaws. The electoral college system overrepresents rural states with smaller populations due to the rule giving a minimum of three electors. This leads to votes in smaller states becoming more valuable then those in larger states. The system also does not have people directly vote for the president. Instead they vote for a slate of electors who would then be sent to the capital to vote for a presidential candidate. The state is also not required (constitutionally) to send electors based on who won the vote in their state. A state could (constitutionally) send electors that are republican even if a democrat wins their states and vice versa. These electors are also (technically) allowed to vote for anyone according to the constitution (though many states have passed laws against this). The electoral college also operates on a winner-takes-all system which has serious effects on how candidates are elected. It creates little incentive to invest in states where you likely won’t win and removes representation from minorities in the state that may have different opinions. Those people’s voices are effectively silenced. All these issues lead to two fundamental flaws with the system. First, by the numbers, a voter in Montana is far more valuable than one in California. Because of this, a candidate could win only about 22% of the popular vote and still become president. Does this really seem like a fair and balanced system that works just as intended? Really? Second, it creates so-called “swing states” in which a couple thousand people determine the fate of the entire country. As such, presidential candidates are heavily incentivized to pander directly to the interests of a small number of key states and ignore the rest of the country. It leads to states where votes are close having more voice in how the country is run than any other.
Due to these flaws a national movement has emerged to change the way presidential elections are done in the United States. This movement relies on a flaw in the electoral college. Specifically, the fact that states are allowed to send electors not based upon votes in their states. This movement, the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), has states pass laws that would send their electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote and not the vote in their state. These laws are also written so that they only activate when a majority of electoral votes are available in states that have passed the law.
If this movement reaches the majority of electoral votes It will essentially destroy the electoral college from within. The president will be elected by the people not through the voodoo magic of the electoral college. This will prevent any situation like before when a president wins without the majority voting for them. It will allow for the voice of the people to be heard in elections regardless of where they live. We will live up to the idea that every vote would be equally valuable and every vote should be equal. It would make every vote truly equal rather than creating a system by which a vote in Georgia or Montana are far more valuable than a vote in California. This could even lead to greater faith in government. Right now very few people have any sort of trust in out government. This move could serve as a important step towards greater trust and understanding and a brighter future.
The main argument against this is essentially “tyranny of the majority”. What does that mean? It essentially means that a small majority should not hold all the power in government and that systems should exist to limit it. It also refers to the argument that the electoral college prevents candidates from pandering to big cities and ignoring the countryside. Both these arguments, however, are in essence stupid. Checks already exist on the power of a majority. To begin, a president may have to deal with a senate which doesn’t side with them, limiting their power. Even if they control the senate, laws passed by a small majority can be filibustered and thus can’t pass. And even after that there is the supreme court which can limit the power of the other two wings by ruling laws unconstitutional. And the only way you can change the constitution is by passing a bill with ⅔ of congress or having ⅔ of states vote for a constitutional convention. And after this for a change to be ratified it requires ¾ of the states to ratify an amendment for it to become valid. Is that not enough limits to the majority?
The idea that politicians will only pander to cities to gain the most votes possible is also an interesting argument at face value. One would think appealing to city voters would be more efficient. However, most people don’t live in cities. If you add up every city with over 100,000 people in the U.S (346 cities) you would have a total of 96,598,047 people. This sounds like a pretty large number, right? This represents only 29.14% of the population. It is not enough to win you an election. This is also ignoring the fact that most people have pre-conceived notions and vote consistently in one direction or another. And even beyond that the current system doesn’t solve the issue. Instead of cities gaining undue political leverage,swing states do. During the 2024 election Kamala Harris refused to ban fracking. This was a move to prevent scaring swing voters in states like Georgia who rely on fracking for employment. On top of that it de-incentivizes campaigning in solid blue or red states as, unless you gain a majority, all those voters will not help gain points in the election. Our current system doesn’t give everyone representation; it only gives representation to states where the votes are close.
Only one real issue exists with this plan:recounts. There is no way for a national recount to be implemented in the case of a close election. This does represent a flaw with the system as it means that election results become less reliable especially if the results are closed. However this issue does not cancel out the clear benefit of removing the electoral college and the many flaws that exist with it.
Right now the NPVC is only about 48 points away from gaining a majority. This may happen in our lifetimes. What will happen next? We have no way to know.
