Should We Get Rid of the Electoral College?

The United States has used the Electoral College system to choose its presidents for more than two centuries (click here). But many Americans have long been in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College and instead selecting the president by popular vote. After all, they note, that’s the way we choose members of Congress, governors, and other elected officials.

Critics of the Electoral College say it’s unfair that a candidate can become president without winning the most votes nationwide. Plus, they say, choosing presidents by popular vote would encourage candidates to pay attention to voters in every state, not just those in swing states.

Many other people, however, say getting rid of the Electoral College could give populous states much more influence over the outcome of elections than less populous ones. An advantage of the current system, they argue, is that it ensures a president has support from people nationwide, because no single region has enough electoral votes to provide a majority.

Should we get rid of the Electoral College? Read on to learn what Americans on both sides of the debate are saying.

The biggest drawback of the Electoral College, critics say, is that it allows a president to be elected without getting the most popular votes. That has happened five times, most recently in 2016 (see sidebar, below).

The problem, many experts say, stems from “winner take all” laws in 48 of the 50 states.

“Such laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in that particular state—even if the win is by only a narrow margin,” explains John R. Koza. He’s the head of National Popular Vote, a group that’s trying to change how electoral votes are awarded. These laws effectively erase the wishes of all the voters who didn’t choose the top candidate in their state, he says.

Because of the Electoral College, presidential elections are largely decided by voters in a handful of swing states—places where a few thousand or even a few hundred votes can swing an election one way or the other. That’s not fair, many people say. Replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote would ensure that every voter in every state is equally important, they argue.

Many other people want to keep the Electoral College. Robert Hardaway, the author of Saving the Electoral College, is one of them. He says our current system “was a key part of the compromise between large and small states at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and it has served America well for more than 230 years.” Indeed, the winner of the electoral vote has lost the popular vote only five times. Supporters say that’s evidence the system is working.

One benefit of the Electoral College, some experts say, is that people in all parts of the country are involved in choosing the president. If we were to elect the president by popular vote, they argue, candidates might pay attention only to voters in densely populated urban areas.

Another advantage, some people say, is that the Electoral College helps ensure that one candidate earns a majority of votes. Without it, votes might be split among dozens of candidates. That could allow someone to win the presidency with the support of a relatively small percentage of Americans, leading to calls that he or she does not represent the nation as a whole.

Consider the advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College. Then decide whether you think the U.S. should keep it or elect presidents by popular vote instead.