In the purported bastion of democracy, the United States, a system exists that allows a candidate to ascend to the presidency without winning the majority of votes: The Electoral College, a mechanism that has allowed Republicans to subverts the foundational principle of majority rule, raising questions about the real election fraud in the land of the free.
The Electoral College, a 235-year-old relic of the past a mechanism that disproportionately benefits Republicans, continues to shape the fate of the nation, often leading to outcomes where the popular vote winner loses. It’s time to demand the abolition of this undemocratic institution that has enabled minority-elected presidents.
Since 1988, Republican candidates have secured the majority of American votes only once, yet the GOP has managed to claim the White House almost as frequently as their Democratic counterparts. The Electoral College allows Republicans to exploit strategic advantages, capitalizing on the quirks of this outdated system to secure victories without genuine majority support, defying the democratic principle of majority rule.
Bill Clinton secured the presidency by winning the popular vote in both 1992 and 1996, while George W. Bush managed to claim the presidency in 2000, despite Al Gore, Clinton’s vice president, receiving more votes overall.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden both garnered over half of the votes in their respective elections. Meanwhile, Donald Trump won in 2016 with 46.1 percent against Hillary Clinton’s 48.2 percent.
Despite Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote in the 2016 election with nearly three million more votes than Donald Trump, the flamboyant businessman assumed office in the West Wing.
This distortion of democracy is not what the framers intended. Kermit Roosevelt, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, highlights that the Electoral College emerged out of compromise rather than a deliberate choice. The framers, grappling with the challenge of balancing competing interests, settled for a flawed system that has endured for centuries.
The disproportionate influence of smaller states and the winner-takes-all feature exacerbates this democratic imbalance. The Electoral College, initially designed to provide independent judgment, has devolved into a partisan tool, favoring swing states and neglecting the concerns of the majority. The popular vote model was rejected due to concerns about low-information voters and regional biases—fears that seem antiquated in today’s information-rich society.
This antiquated system breeds an aristocracy of states, marginalizing the voices of millions and reducing the campaign focus to a handful of battlegrounds.
The crux of the issue lies in the winner-takes-all feature, a distortion not mandated by the Constitution. This feature, implemented by states, amplifies the influence of swing states, relegating the rest to electoral insignificance. The Electoral College, rather than ensuring a broad representation, concentrates power and attention in select regions, neglecting the diverse needs and concerns of the entire nation.
While arguments persist that abolishing the Electoral College could lead to neglecting small states, the reality is that candidates currently ignore entire states, focusing solely on the swing states crucial for victory. A shift to a popular vote system would force candidates to address the concerns of all citizens, fostering a more inclusive and representative democracy.
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi suggests that a genuine threat looms in 2024 if third-party candidates disrupt the balance, potentially leading to a 45-45 race where the Electoral College could decide the outcome. This further underscores the urgency of reforming a system that hampers the pursuit of a true majority.
The Electoral College is a systemic flaw that distorts the essence of democracy. It’s imperative to question and challenge outdated systems that compromise the principles of fairness, representation, and majority rule. The United States must muster the courage to bid farewell to the Electoral College and embrace a more direct and democratic path to electing its leaders. The time for change is now, for the sake of a truer, more representative democracy.
