Can the Electoral College Survive the Campaign to End It?

In 2000, for the first time since 1888, the Electoral College opened the door to the Oval Office for a candidate who hadn’t won the popular vote.  Republican George W. Bush lost to Democrat Al Gore by just under 544,000 votes.  But Bush, needing 270 electoral college votes to win, picked up 271 to Gore’s 266. 

For Democrats, W’s win was hard to accept – for years, Gore introduced himself as the man who won the election.  In 2006, the Left put the Electoral College in its crosshairs.  Under the banner of 1 person, 1 vote, the organization National Popular Vote took root and began lobbying full tilt at the state and federal level for the elimination of the Electoral College. 

The next three elections were true to form.  W in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012 won the popular vote and the electoral college.  Then came 2016.  Donald Trump wins the presidency with 304 electoral college votes, 77 more than Hillary Clinton.  It was a substantial margin.  However, Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes.  Not exactly close. 

But Clinton carried just 500 counties – 88 of which were the most populated counties in the nation.  Trump won 2,600 counties.  That disparity illustrates why we are a democratic republic, and why electoral college best ensures every state and its people equal representation in Washington, D.C.    

Big vs Little 

The famous red/blue election maps reveals the chasm between the urban blue regions and the rural red.  This urban-rural divide is reflected in the Electoral College, which was designed to prevent more populated areas from having disproportionate influence over the less populated ones. However, the realities of modern demographics and economic dependencies complicate this balance. The largess of government and the concentration of populations in urban areas and their significant reliance on federal resources has shaped voting behaviors and political priorities.   

Large cities receive a considerable amount of federal funding due to their needs for infrastructure, social services, and economic programs. The bigger the city, the more money from Washington. Ultimately, that translates into political leverage and results that may not align with less populated areas. 

As you read these words, National Popular Vote’s effort to end the Electoral College is gaining momentum in state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress.  Seventeen states and Washington, D.C. have already enacted laws to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.  They total 209 electoral votes.  It takes 270 electoral votes to win the White House. 

That means a razor-thin margin of only 61 Electoral College votes is all that stands between the direct popular vote movement and making your vote irrelevant.  If they reach 270, the Electoral College is, for all intents and purposes, dead. 

The Electoral College was created to prevent what John Adams called the “tyranny of the majority.”  Alexander Hamilton shared that fear in a letter to Thomas Jefferson during the Constitutional Convention:   

[My concern] . . . direct democracy would be used “by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon or population centers.” 

If the 2016 presidential election had been by direct popular vote, a tiny number of counties, mostly along the coasts and densely populated urban areas, would have dictated the results for the entire country.    

Consider this:  In 2016, Clinton collected 2.8 million more votes than Trump.  In New York City’s five boroughs, her margin of victory?  1.5 million votes.  

The stage is set for the 2024 election to mirror 2016, with Trump, currently leading in the polls, losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College.  Buckle up.  It’s going to be a rough ride.