The Electoral College: Guardrail

Opinion Piece by Jacob London

The Electoral College has been a subject of intense debate, especially following contentious elections like Bush v. Gore in 2000 and Trump v. Clinton in 2016. Critics often claim it’s an outdated system that doesn’t reflect the popular will, advocating for its replacement with a national popular vote. However, the Electoral College remains a key component of Constitutional Federalism, preserving a balance between state and federal interests, ensuring broad regional representation, and promoting political stability. Despite its imperfections, the Electoral College serves crucial functions that would be difficult to replicate.

To understand the Electoral College, it's important to revisit the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Founders sought a practical method to elect the president that balanced fairness. They rejected a direct popular vote due to concerns over a “tyranny of the majority,” where a few populous states could dominate. Similarly, electing the president through Congress was dismissed as it would erode the separation of powers. The Electoral College emerged as a compromise, giving smaller states a voice by allocating electors based on each state’s congressional representation. This ensured that neither densely populated urban areas nor rural regions held disproportionate power, creating a system designed to ensure all voices are heard.

Federalism, the principle of shared power between the national government and the states, is central to the U.S. political system. The Electoral College protects this balance by ensuring each state has a meaningful role in presidential elections. Without it, candidates would likely focus only on large population centers like New York and Los Angeles, neglecting smaller states and rural regions. The current system forces candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters, building coalitions across the country. 

For instance, in 2016, without the Electoral College, the outcome might have been determined solely by voters in metropolitan areas. Instead, the system gave states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania significant influence. This regional balance is crucial in a country as large and diverse as the U.S.

Protecting the interests of small states ensures that regional concerns and diverse perspectives are adequately represented. Without these protections, policy decisions could overwhelmingly favor large urban areas, leaving rural and sparsely populated regions overlooked.

Small states like Nebraska, Montana, or North Dakota rely heavily on agriculture, ranching, and natural resources. In a direct popular vote system, presidential candidates might focus on urban voters' concerns, such as tech or urban infrastructure, while neglecting rural economic issues.

For example, stricter environmental regulations aimed at urban preferences could devastate agricultural economies, hurting farming communities that depend on different land-use policies. States like Wyoming or Vermont face specific challenges related to geography, such as harsh winters or wildfires, which require targeted federal disaster relief and infrastructure investment. In a popular vote system, candidates might prioritize infrastructure investments in urban centers, while rural areas suffering from frequent natural disasters could be neglected. The Electoral College compels candidates to consider these smaller states' needs to secure electoral votes.

Small states like Wyoming, Alaska, and West Virginia are major producers of coal, oil, and natural gas, and their economies depend heavily on energy production. A popular vote system might lead to national energy policies that cater to urban environmental interests, such as banning fossil fuels without considering the economic consequences for energy-producing states. The Electoral College ensures that candidates must balance urban and rural energy interests.

Small, rural states often have distinct cultural and educational priorities compared to urban centers. States like South Dakota, Idaho, and Maine may emphasize local control over education, with curricula reflecting regional values. Under a popular vote system, candidates could push for national educational standards that cater to urban areas’ preferences, sidelining the cultural and educational priorities of smaller, rural states. The Electoral College forces candidates to account for these diverse needs.

Rural states face unique healthcare challenges, including fewer hospitals and longer travel distances for care. States like Montana and Vermont rely on policies that promote healthcare access in rural areas, such as telemedicine expansion. In a system driven by the popular vote, candidates could focus healthcare reforms on urban needs, potentially ignoring the vital rural healthcare policies necessary for these states. The Electoral College encourages broader consideration of rural healthcare needs.

The Electoral College, like the Senate, protects small states from being dominated by larger, more populous ones. For example, a constitutional amendment could be proposed that restricts certain local rights, like resource management or land use. Without the Electoral College, populous states could easily pass such an amendment, ignoring the strong opposition of smaller states. The Electoral College helps prevent such dominance by requiring candidates to win electoral votes across various states.

One of the Electoral College’s original purposes was to prevent “tyranny of the majority,” where the majority could impose its will without considering minority groups. This concern remains relevant today. The requirement to win a majority of electoral votes forces candidates to appeal to various regions and communities, rather than just high-population areas. This checks majority rule and ensures smaller states and minority groups have a say in choosing the president.

Without this system, candidates could ignore rural or less populous regions, focusing only on urban areas. The Electoral College, by design, ensures presidential elections reflect the interests of the entire country, not just a select few.

Another significant advantage of the Electoral College is the stability it brings to the electoral process. In a close election under a direct popular vote, recounts could occur in all 50 states, leading to delays and legal disputes. The Electoral College narrows the focus, limiting recounts to specific states and reducing confusion.

Additionally, the Electoral College often ensures the president has broad national support by requiring candidates to win multiple states. This broad base of support is essential for maintaining presidential legitimacy and effective governance.

Though not without flaws, the Electoral College plays a vital role in maintaining fairness in American elections. It ensures that all states, regardless of size, have a meaningful role in selecting the president, encourages candidates to campaign across the country, and helps prevent majority dominance. In a country as large and diverse as the United States, the

Electoral College balances regional interests, protects state sovereignty, and ensures political stability. Rather than abandoning it, efforts should focus on refining it to meet the needs of modern democracy.