The Distortion of the Electorate in the Electoral College
As of November 23, Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote tally has exceeded 2.2 million, marking only the fifth time in history, but the second time in the past five elections, that the winner of the popular vote has lost the presidential election. Just as in 2000, when Democratic candidate Al Gore gathered 48.4 percent of the popular vote compared to George Bush’s 47.9 percent and still lost, the liberal rhetoric following the election has in large part been an admonishment of the Electoral College.
Cries for electors to vote the will of the people and articles titled “How Hillary Could Still Win” are ubiquitous throughout social media, just as claims that “the system is rigged” can be overheard daily in campus coffee shops and casual dorm room conversations. Yet, it is clearly stated in the twelfth amendment of our Constitution that the president will be chosen by the electors in each state who vote with their constituency. And while it may be easy for an agitated liberal to denounce the Electoral College as a backlash to an unfavorable election result, it is also reasonable to question the legitimacy of the Electoral College, as well as the effects it may have on voter turnout and political equality. The Electoral College stands as a symbol of our outdated Constitution, serving the needs of those who founded it in 1787 but failing to adhere to the political needs of a contemporary federal republic.
The first major problem that the Electoral College presents is the sheer possibility of achieving the results of this year’s election: one candidate wins the popular vote yet loses the election. This should alarm both disgruntled Democrats and joyous Republicans alike. There is something inherent in this type of result that makes the United States seem less democratic. The determination of the people is overruled by a mere 538 electors who agree to vote the will of their respective states in an all-or-nothing contest. It hardly seems fair that in a state like Michigan, where Trump outpaced Clinton by a mere 11,000 votes (.3 percent to be exact), all 16 electoral votes still go to Trump.
Aside from the plea that a direct democracy is more fair than an Electoral College, there is the issue of voter turnout and the effect that the Electoral College has on it. Here in New York, a solidly blue state, many students simply did not vote because of the common conception that their votes were not valuable, or would not have had a substantial impact on the election. In fact, new studies conducted by the United States Election Project show that those states listed as “battleground” states had a significantly higher turnout than those that were either solidly Democratic or Republican.
What this means for our democracy is that many voters choose not to participate because they recognize that their voice is not acknowledged by the general election process. This creates a problem that threatens the very foundations of our democracy, as elections become governed by a smaller sample size of voters, in turn causing an unequal distribution of political influence between those who vote and those who don’t.
Furthermore, the issue of political influence is spurred on by the structure of the Electoral College which distributes electoral votes based on state population. Theoretically, this distribution would create a one-person, one-vote system, where each vote has an equal weight. However, this is not the case. Depending on which state you live in, your vote may have significantly more or less impact on the overall election. An electoral vote in Wyoming, for example, is decided by about 200,000 people, whereas there are over 700,000 people per electoral vote in California. Thus, a Wyoming native has almost three times the voting power as a voter from California.
Political agency and impact is not a new issue. In 1981, the renowned political philosopher Ronald Dworkin claimed that “an adequate dependent conception of democracy… requires equality of vote within districts, and presumes equality of impact across them.” According to Dworkin then, the Electoral College, and thus the current U.S. political system, may be qualified as undemocratic.
One common rebuttal from proponents of the Electoral College is that our current design facilitates a two-party system, while hindering third-party candidates from gaining enough support to land in the White House. Claiming that in a direct election third-party candidates would be encouraged to run in order to draw votes away from one of the two candidates, proponents assert that the current electoral system helps to maintain political stability and cohesion.
Yet, with Congress’ approval ratings plummeting, many Americans are disenchanted and unhappy with the two party system, insisting that it leads to a political gridlock in which very little is ever accomplished. Furthermore, third-party candidates this election cycle actually had a greater impact with the Electoral College than they would have without it. Giving half of Gary Johnson’s votes to Clinton and half to Trump, and giving all of Steins votes to Clinton (Stein and Clinton align on many issues), Clinton would have won Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a scenario which would have flipped the result of the election. Thus, the third-party candidate votes in critical swing states have the power to flip an election even with the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is unlikely to be abolished any time in the near future. To do so would require a two-thirds vote from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. In the meantime, it is crucial to remain critical of our government and electoral processes. Only through this will we remain cognizant and aware of the impact our governing powers have on the people.
