The Trouble with the Electoral College

Summary

The U.S. Electoral College system distorts democratic fairness by giving disproportionate voting power to small states, making some votes count more than others. Small states, like Rhode Island and Wyoming, receive more electoral votes per capita than larger states, leading to a system that fails to reflect the popular vote. Candidates focus on swing states, neglecting others, while the winner-takes-all approach lets a candidate win without securing the most votes. Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote would ensure all votes count equally and align the system with democratic ideals.

Takeaways

• 😀 The U.S. Electoral College system distorts the democratic principle of equal representation by giving disproportionate power to smaller states.
• 😀 The Electoral College allocates 538 votes among states, but not in a way that reflects the population size, leading to unequal representation.
• 😀 For example, Ohio, with over 11 million people, should have 20 electoral votes but only gets 18, while Rhode Island gets 4 votes despite having only 1.1 million people.
• 😀 The system gives every state at least three electoral votes, which means smaller states like Rhode Island are overrepresented compared to larger ones like California.
• 😀 This unequal distribution results in some states having more influence in the election than others, making a vote in smaller states worth more.
• 😀 In some cases, a voter in Vermont has more electoral influence than a voter in Texas, with one Vermonter's vote equaling three Texans' votes.
• 😀 The Electoral College’s winner-takes-all system means candidates focus only on swing states, ignoring states where they have a clear lead.
• 😀 Only a handful of battleground states—like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania—receive most of the candidates’ attention, leaving the rest of the country largely ignored.
• 😀 This system also means that it is possible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote, as seen in several U.S. elections.
• 😀 A candidate can theoretically win the presidency by securing a majority of the electoral votes in small states, even if they win only 22% of the popular vote.
• 😀 Abolishing the Electoral College and implementing a direct popular vote would ensure that every vote counts equally, creating a more democratic and fair election process.

Q & A

What is the main issue with the U.S. Electoral College system as described in the script?

The main issue is that the Electoral College violates the principle of equal representation, as it makes some votes more powerful than others by awarding electoral votes based on states rather than individual citizens.

How does the Electoral College unfairly distribute votes among states?

The Electoral College gives every state a minimum of 3 electoral votes regardless of its population size, which causes smaller states to have a disproportionate influence compared to larger states. For example, Rhode Island gets 4 electoral votes despite having only 1.1 million people.

Why does the Electoral College make some votes 'more equal' than others?

Because the Electoral College system assigns electoral votes to states rather than individuals, it ends up inflating the votes of people in smaller states. For example, one vote in Vermont or Wyoming is worth much more than a vote in California or Texas.

How does the winner-takes-all system in the Electoral College affect presidential candidates' behavior?

The winner-takes-all system forces candidates to focus only on swing states with close races, ignoring states where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This results in candidates paying little attention to the majority of Americans.

What is the common argument in favor of the Electoral College, and why does the script disagree with it?

The common argument is that the Electoral College protects smaller states by giving them more influence. However, the script disagrees, pointing out that the system actually fails to make small states a priority during elections, as candidates focus on a handful of battleground states.

Does abolishing the Electoral College risk giving too much influence to large cities?

No, abolishing the Electoral College would not lead to candidates focusing solely on large cities. The population distribution in the U.S. means that even the largest cities are too small to dominate the election, and candidates would still need to appeal to a broader, more diverse electorate.

Can a candidate win the presidency without winning the majority of the popular vote? How?

Yes, a candidate can win the presidency with less than half the popular vote by winning the electoral votes of smaller states, which are disproportionately represented in the Electoral College. This happened in 2000, 1876, and 1824.

How does the script demonstrate the flaws of the Electoral College with a hypothetical scenario?

The script provides a scenario where a candidate could win the presidency with only 22% of the popular vote by strategically winning states with small populations that are overrepresented in the Electoral College, showing how the system can let the 'loser' win.

What is the script's argument for abolishing the Electoral College?

The script argues that the Electoral College distorts the democratic process by allowing some votes to count more than others. Abolishing it and moving to a direct popular vote would ensure that every citizen's vote is equal and that the will of the majority is respected.

How does the script address the potential consequences of abolishing the Electoral College for rural areas?

The script acknowledges the concern that large cities might dominate elections, but it dismisses this fear by showing that even the largest cities represent a very small percentage of the population, meaning that candidates would still need to engage with voters across the country.