The Electoral College: How It Works And Who It Works For

​

This is a form of representative democracy, where individuals vote for people (electors) who then vote for the president, rather than voting directly for a president. If we compare the electoral college to Canada’s first past the post system, we see that it is the same idea, though not the same practice. Here, we vote for candidates (MPs and MPPs) and the leader of the winning party becomes Prime Minister or Premier. We as voters do not directly choose the Prime Minister, nor do we directly vote on each piece of legislation, rather we vote for candidates to represent us in government.

​

The electoral college system was created by America’s founding fathers at a time when there was little sense of national politics and the average citizen had little knowledge of wide-scale politics. Thus, rather than having individuals vote for someone they didn’t know from a faraway part of the country, they would vote for a local person whom they trusted to represent their local needs by voting for a president that would help them. 

The electoral college has existed for over 200 years and elected over 44 presidents. Despite its longevity, there are many criticisms of this process, mainly that it can elect a president who did not receive the majority of votes across the nation, that the system over-represents states with smaller populations, and that the process prevents candidates from giving attention to partisan states. These criticisms all get at the same fundamental questions: is the electoral college a good democratic system? Does it reasonably represent the American people?

​

The major issue with the electoral college system is that it can result in the election of a president who did not receive the national popular vote, meaning the majority of Americans voted against them. This has happened in 5 out of 58 elections to date, most notably in George Bush’s first term in 2000 and Trump’s election in 2016, where the other candidate won the popular vote by 500,000 and 3,000,000 votes, respectively [3]. 

​

This happens due to the intrinsic nature of the electoral college; since it is divided by state, it matters not only who you vote for, but also, critically, where you cast your vote. Almost every state gives all of its electoral college votes to whoever wins the majority of votes in that state. This means that even if 49% of people in a state vote for candidate A, the electoral votes will all go to candidate B who received 51% of the vote. Continuing the above example, if two states had this 49%/51% voter split, both give all their electoral votes to candidate B, but if voters moved across state borders, it could change the percentage split and with the same popular vote would result in very different electoral votes.

​

One contributing factor in the disparity between the national popular vote and the elected president is the small state bias. While the number of congresspeople representing each state is roughly proportional to its respective population, each state has two senators no matter its size. This means that the electoral college is not proportional to population, as the smallest state, Wyoming, has 3 electors with a population of around 600,000, whereas California has 55 electors and a population of nearly 40 million. This gives disproportionate weight to the votes of states with smaller populations. That said, this bias was actually intentional to the system, as early politicians worried that if the electoral college was just proportional to population, candidates could win despite campaigning only in big cities or particular states and ignoring the interests of states with smaller populations, succumbing to the “tyranny of the majority”. Further, considering this system was created to convince states to join the Union rather than staying independent where they had full control over their laws, it makes sense that smaller states would have wanted this type of protection. 

​

Some argue that this system favours small, rural, and often Republican states, whereas others claim it is valid protection of state’s rights. Whether you deem this bias a good or bad thing, it is fairly inconsequential. The bias is influential only if the difference in electoral votes between the candidates is within 20 votes, and this has only come into play in the 1800s and again in the 2000 election [4].

​

A less intentional bias of the electoral college is the importance it puts on swing states. Swing states are any state that does not vote consistently for one party or the other. Strongly partisan states, no matter their size, become non-essential players in an election, as they can be counted on to vote consistently. This means that the candidates tend to need to win over swing states to win the election, and thus focus their campaigning in these areas more so than other states. This ends up discounting the voices of many Americans. For example, though California is the most populous state in the nation, its strong Democrat voting history means that candidates do not have to listen as strongly to the needs of its people, since the Democrats will win their votes pretty much no matter what.

​

With these biases, and many calling the electoral college antiquated and undemocratic, it is worth asking what the alternatives may be. Though most states have a winner-take-all approach to electoral votes, it is not mandated that it be that way, and states can allocate their votes however they see fit. In fact, before the mid 19th century, around half the states did not have citizens vote directly for electors at all, rather their state legislature determined who the electors would vote to be president [2]. Currently, two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate some electoral votes to the popular vote for the entire state and then one vote for the popular vote in each congressional district. Beyond this, there has been a recent movement towards a national popular vote approach, with 15 states and DC signing onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [5]. This is an agreement where the states pledge that once a majority of states adopt the Compact all those who signed on will give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, thereby electing a president the majority of Americans want. 

​

This Compact reflects the international push to move towards more proportional representation systems. Canada  has a similar winner-takes-all election process, which can make it hard for smaller parties to win seats if their votes are not concentrated in a particular political riding. In 2016, the federal Liberal government promised to look into election reform, but has since recalled that idea in favour of staying with the same system. In a democracy, there is a constant struggle between the popular vote, protection of minorities, and regional representation. No system is perfect, but they all can and should be made better. As Canadians, while it is useful to understand and discuss the electoral college and its faults, it may be even more helpful to take a look closer to home and think critically about what we want our electoral system to look like.