Your Vote Does Not Count: Why the Electoral College Erodes the Foundations of Democracy
Jack Halperin (PPS ‘27)
The Electoral College has silenced the political voices of 82% of Americans who do not live in one of seven swing states. Politicians take your votes for granted, considering them to be ‘safe,’ and unworthy of their attention. To an extent, you have been disenfranchised by an antiquated and frivolous system for no reason at all. It is time for America to move on to a more logical, simple method to elect its Presidents.
Beyond the much-cited fact that the Electoral College makes it possible for the winning candidate to lose the popular vote, this system causes shocking voter inequality in presidential elections. Because elections are often decided by just a few states, candidates tend to spend huge amounts of resources campaigning in battleground states. Most recently, Vice President Harris and President-elect Trump visited Pennsylvania a combined 52 times since August, and have visited a group of 35 non-swing states a total of zero times.
The consequence is that, for agenda-setting purposes, campaign platforms are skewed toward the preferences of a small subset of arbitrary states that is not representative of the American populace. The Trump and Harris campaigns focused heavily on immigration, fracking, and the economy — issues that were most salient in key swing states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. As a result, the priorities of so-called ‘safe’ states are neglected because their votes are seen as foregone conclusions. This process makes politicians responsive to only a handful of voters from competitive states.
The Electoral College also greatly affects voter turnout. Voters in safe states face little incentive to come to the polls, and therefore vote at lower rates than voters in swing states. This unintended consequence is especially toxic for democracy because it means that only the most diehard, partisan voters turn out. When the extreme voices are louder, it leads directly to polarization and gridlock in down-ballot races for Congress, state, and local government. Abolishing (or circumventing) the Electoral College and relying on a system based on the popular vote could have a large, positive impact on voter turnout in America.
Because the Electoral College is based on total representation in Congress, including representatives plus senators, the system gives voters in smaller states a disproportionate amount of power: people in Wyoming have almost four times as much electoral muscle as people in Texas. Obviously, this is unfair and violates the founding democratic principle of “one person, one vote.”
Proponents of the Electoral College system argue that it promotes national unity by requiring candidates to win a broad coalition of states that spans the country. This is an outdated idea that does not apply to modern-day America. Today, American politics are extremely regional: about 60% of voters live in landslide counties that were won by more than twenty points in 2020. The Electoral College does not prevent the intense regionalism and extremism that are so common today.
Supporters of the Electoral College also contend that it prevents urban-centric campaigning, guaranteeing that rural areas are not forgotten. This argument relies on the notion that the Electoral College ensures representation for rural America, which is untrue. The only areas that are guaranteed representation are the handful of random states that happen to be the most competitive in a given election cycle. Votes from all other states (rural or urban) are not cared for. If the president were elected by popular vote, this would incentivize campaign platforms that more closely align with America’s priorities as a whole, instead of the niche preferences of arbitrary swing states.
So, what’s the solution?
The most severe solution is to abolish the Electoral College by passing a constitutional amendment. Although very popular among Americans, such a measure would require a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and support from 38 of 50 states — a threshold that is near impossible in today’s age of congressional gridlock.
Despite this, some states, like Maine and Nebraska, have taken advantage of the fact that the Constitution does not mandate how states must divide their electoral votes. A more practical solution is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), an agreement that states would cast their electors for the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote, regardless of who wins in that state. So far, 15 states have signed the NPVIC, and it would only take effect once states whose electoral votes total 270 ratify the legislation.
Politicians must make it a priority to reform the system that silences America.
Jack Halperin (PPS ‘27) is from White Plains, NY and is a Public Policy Undergraduate at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. This piece was submitted as an op-ed in the Spring ’23 PUBPOL 301 course. This content does not represent the official or unofficial views of the Sanford School, Polis, Duke University, or any entity or individual other than the author.
