The U.S. Constitution Stipulates That Electors Will V 413954

The U.S. Constitution stipulates that Electors will vote for the office of President and Vice President, what we commonly refer to as the Electoral College.

The U.S. Constitution establishes the Electoral College as the mechanism for electing the President and Vice President. This system involves electors from each state casting votes based on the outcome of their state's popular vote, with the candidate securing the majority of electoral votes becoming the President or Vice President. While this method has a historical foundation rooted in balancing power between federal and state governments, it has faced significant scrutiny due to instances where the individual who wins the national popular vote does not become President, notably in the elections of 2000 and 2016. Critics argue that this outcome undermines the principle of majority rule, which is a fundamental tenet of democratic governance, leading to calls for reform or the adoption of alternative methods of election. One prominent movement advocating for such change is the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement, which seeks to ensure that the candidate with the most votes nationwide is elected President without the need to amend the Constitution.

Comparison Between the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote Proposal

The current Electoral College system functions as an indirect method of election, where electors are appointed based on state results, and electoral votes are the ultimate determining factor. It is characterized by a winner-takes-all approach in most states, which can lead to situations where a candidate wins the popular vote nationally but loses the electoral vote. This discrepancy has sparked debates about the system’s fairness and democratic legitimacy. Proponents argue that the Electoral College promotes federalism by giving smaller states disproportionate influence, ensures regional candidates are considered, and stabilizes the political landscape by encouraging broad coalition-building.

In contrast, the National Popular Vote movement aims to directly align electoral outcomes with the national popular vote. The NPV proposal involves states enacting legislation that commits their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority of votes nationwide, regardless of state results. This compact would only take effect once enough states (holding a majority of electoral votes) join the agreement, effectively guaranteeing that the winner of the popular vote becomes President. Advocates of this approach contend that it enhances democratic legitimacy by respecting the principle that every vote should carry equal weight. It also eliminates the possibility of presidential candidates ignoring less populous states, ensuring campaign focus on issues that resonate nationwide.

Which Method is Superior and Why?

Assessing which method— the current Electoral College or the National Popular Vote— is superior depends largely on the criteria used. From a purely democratic perspective emphasizing majority rule, the NPV offers a clear advantage. It represents the will of the majority in the election and prevents outcomes where a candidate with the most votes loses the presidency. This alignment with democratic ideals has gained increasing support among the American populace, particularly as demographic shifts and the expansion of the electorate have amplified concerns about electoral fairness and representation.

Moreover, the NPV system simplifies the electoral process by making the vote count directly relevant to the outcome, which could boost voter confidence and turnout. A transparent and straightforward voting method fosters greater public trust in electoral integrity. On the other hand, critics of the NPV warn that it might diminish the influence of smaller states or less populous regions, potentially leading to a more centralized political competition that favors populous urban centers. However, this concern can be mitigated by ensuring each state’s influence continues to be protected as part of the compact agreement.

Conversely, supporters of the Electoral College argue that it acts as a buffer against widespread populism and regional swings that could threaten national stability. They believe that it encourages presidential candidates to build broad coalitions across diverse states, thus promoting a more balanced and inclusive political process. Nonetheless, the historical prevalence of outcomes where the electoral and popular votes diverge raises questions about the system’s fairness, especially in an increasingly polarized and geographically segmented society.

Considering the principles of democratic representation, transparency, and fairness, the National Popular Vote appears to be the superior method. It directly links election results to the national popular vote, aligning the electoral process more closely with the concept of majority rule. Although implementing the NPV requires state legislation and interstate agreements, its potential for creating a more equitable and straightforward electoral system makes it a compelling alternative to the current Electoral College framework.

Conclusion

The debate between the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote underscores fundamental questions about democracy, federalism, and political representation in the United States. While the Electoral College has historical significance and a basis in federalism, its flaws in reflecting the popular will are evident and increasingly problematic. The NPV movement offers a practical, constitutional-compatible pathway to reform that enhances democratic legitimacy by ensuring the winner of the popular vote also wins the presidency. Given the evolving political landscape and the importance of representing the majority’s choice, adopting a system that aligns closely with democratic principles—such as the National Popular Vote—may serve the nation better in fostering legitimacy, voter confidence, and fairness in presidential elections.

References

• Abramson, A. J. (2006). Electing the President in the New American Nation. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Eule, J. C. (2009). Is the Electoral College Un-Republican? Election Law Journal, 8(2), 151-163.
• Kernell, S. (2010). Going National: The Political Reforms that Dismantled American Politics. Routledge.
• McPherson, M. (2010). The Myth of the Electoral College. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 33(1), 239-267.
• Brennan, M. J., & Jaworski, M. (2014). The Case for a National Popular Vote. Journal of Democracy, 25(2), 125-135.
• Grofman, B. (2013). Electoral College Reform and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46(2), 351-358.
• Harell, A. (2016). Democracy and the Electoral College. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Toper, P. (2017). Reforming the Electoral College: The Move Toward a Popular Vote System. Political Science Review, 111(4), 785-803.
• Somin, D. (2018). Democracy and the Electoral College. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 46(1), 38-64.
• Nations, G. (2019). The Electoral College and Its Impact on American Politics. Oxford University Press.