The United States has always been regarded—or has at least made itself known—as the world’s foremost beacon of democracy. But ironically, at the heart of its electoral process lies what is perceived by critics to be an undemocratic and elitist remnant of its post-colonial struggle as a nation—the Electoral College.

IN THE United States (US), one does not simply get elected as president by winning a majority of voters, or the so-called “popular vote.” Rather, it is a race for the majority of electoral votes. Each state is given a certain number of electoral votes, proportional to its population.

For example, California, the most populous state, has 55 electoral votes, while Wyoming, the least populous, only has three. In most cases, whoever wins the most number of votes in a state takes all of that state’s electoral votes.

The GUIDON weighs in on this distinctive feature of the American voting system.

Pros

• Small states’ rights

In contrast with a nationwide direct election where candidates can just direct efforts in urban areas to secure large chunks of votes, the Electoral College system ensures that even small states will be given attention by the candidates. The idea of “swing” or “battleground” states perfectly demonstrates this. Too often in close votes, it is these states that matter.

In contrast, “safe” states, especially large ones like California, New York and Texas, are areas where a political party has consistently won by a comfortable margin.

• Efficiency… and a whole lot of arguments applicable in the 18th century

America’s Founding Fathers never imagined how modern day elections would turn out. There were no well-established political parties to organize support and craft platforms. There were no media and ample infrastructure and transportation to carry out electoral strategies in what was already a huge nation. Even if America was significantly smaller before, it was much more difficult to mount a national campaign then than today.

Originally, the idea of the Electoral College was for the voters to elect representatives or electors from each state who would then go to the capital and elect the president. The formula for each state’s number of electors is equal to the number of senators, plus the number of congressional districts it has.

Cons

• Dangerously undemocratic

Just like Harvey Dent, it seems the Electoral College—once deemed the solution to an 18th century problem—has lived long enough to be a villain in American politics.

And a villain it was not only once, but four times. Three times, in 1876, 1888 and, most recently, in 2000, the man voted by most Americans didn’t get to become president because he wasn’t able to reach the necessary number of electoral votes. It was even worse in 1824, when a tie happened. In such a case, it was up to the House of Representatives to choose the president. That year, John Quincy Adams was chosen, defeating Andrew Jackson, winner of the popular vote.

• Weird outcomes

Though chances were slim, some pundits raised the possibility of an electoral vote tie last year amid the neck-and-neck race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Had this happened, it was likely that the Republican-controlled House would elect Romney while the Democratic-held Senate, in charge of electing the Vice President in this event, would choose Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden.

• Rule of the few

Fortunately, no tie has happened since 1824, but the concept of a few people eventually electing the president is in fact inherent in the Electoral College system.

As mentioned earlier, close elections are decided by how battleground or swing states vote. Candidates would spend ridiculous amounts of time and money just to win these voters, snubbing those in other parts of the country. In a way, the candidates’ and the country’s futures are in the hands of a few swing state voters.

Compromise

So why not abolish this system altogether? In a Gallup poll conducted in 2011, 62% of Americans were in favor of its dissolution. But it’s just not that easy since this system was put in place by virtue of a constitutional provision. To amend this, three-fourths of all states in the Union should agree to ratify these changes. However, it is expected that the small states benefitting from the current system are not yet ready to give up their leverage.

As a compromise, a proposal called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is being passed around state legislatures. Each state that agrees to the NPVIC will award its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. Since it is up to the states to determine how to award its electoral votes, a Constitutional amendment is not necessary.

The NPVIC will only take effect once the states joining the compact have a majority of the electoral votes. Right now, eight states plus the District of Columbia have adopted this measure, with a combined pool of 132 electoral votes, or 49% of the 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total electoral votes in the US) needed for the NPVIC to take effect in its member states.

Sources: pbs.org, brittanica.com, constitutioncenter.org, usatoday.com, wikipedia.org