It’s seriously messed up that a vote in Michigan, Georgia, or a few other states carries more weight than a vote elsewhere.
For over 200 years, the Electoral College has determined the outcome of U.S. presidential elections, yet a majority of Americans have consistently favored moving away from this system.
The Electoral College assigns electors based on the number of senators and representatives each state has in Congress, along with three electors for the District of Columbia, totaling 538. Most states grant all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins in that state.
According to a Pew Research Center survey of 9,720 adults conducted from August 26 to September 2, 2024, over 63% of Americans would prefer that the presidential election winner be the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide, while around 35% support maintaining the Electoral College.
My French relatives can’t grasp it at all, and I’ve stopped trying to explain. Since Republicans have won the popular vote only once since 2000, they’ll do everything they can to keep the current system in place.
The simplest way to circumvent the outdated Electoral College is to persuade enough states to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote.
I believe that if anyone encounters someone defending the Electoral College or claiming that “a few big cities shouldn’t decide everything for everyone,” they should ask this question: “What are your thoughts on the winner-take-all system? Shouldn’t the electoral votes at least be proportional to the popular vote?” Personally, I would have fewer issues with the system if Democrats in Oklahoma and Republicans in Massachusetts received electoral votes corresponding to their percentage of the vote. If 40% of the votes went to the loser and 60% to the winner, the electoral votes should reflect that. However, ultimately, the popular vote should determine the winner. This would encourage higher turnout, and if you think it’s unfair to rural voters, consider why your platform only appeals to them. Why perpetuate the urban-rural divide when both groups need access to healthcare, education, infrastructure improvements, and jobs?