I'm writing this less than a week before the November elections. For the first time in my life, the phrase "the most consequential election in history" is not an exaggeration. If anything the phrase understates the severity of the stakes we face. I'm in agreement with the respected historian Robert Paxton, who told the New York Times that "If Trump wins, it's going to be awful. If he loses, it's going to be awful too."
As we all know by now, to become president of the United States requires 270 Electoral College votes. In the last six presidential elections, the Republican candidate has lost the popular vote five times, yet won the presidency three times. Only in 2004 did the Republican (George W. Bush) win both the popular and Electoral College vote.
In 2024 the volatility of the polls suggests any number of possible outcomes. It is conceivable one candidate could win by a landslide in both the popular and Electoral College vote. If Trump wins Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania we could easily see a repeat of 2016. It's not likely, but we could even see a situation in which Harris loses the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College.
 |
| In 2020 Joe Biden won both the popular and Electoral College vote. But because of how close the vote was in the so-called swing states, Mr. Trump only needs to flip several thousand votes in a handful of states in order to repeat his 2016 triumph. |
For me, the racist origins of the Electoral College should by itself be enough to abolish it. Because of the "3/5 compromise" in the 1787 Constitution, the southern states were able to include slaves in the census count, which increased those states' congressional representation and electoral votes. According to constitutional law professor Akhil Amar, in 1800 the "free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes." Not coincidentally, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the White House for 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years. The Electoral College is worth rejecting if for no other reason than rejecting that sordid past.
Okay, I know that righting historical wrongs is not a high priority for people who have more pressing things to think about. But even if we ignore the history, just focusing on the present ways that the Electoral College makes our presidential election an international embarrassment should be enough to force change. Here are just three electoral college absurdities:
The Electoral College Empowers Only a Small Group Of Voters. At my university (University of Wisconsin Oshkosh), we now have a number of students from Illinois. One of them--who happens to follow politics more closely than most students--came up to me about a month ago, told me he was registered to vote in Illinois, and said he was going to vote by absentee ballot. I told him that, since Kamala Harris was certain to win Illinois, his vote for Trump or Harris would actually carry much more weight in Wisconsin where the result was less certain. What complicated matters for this particular student was that he happens to be from Illinois's 17th Congressional District, which happens to be the only genuinely competitive one in the entire state. This particular student cares deeply about the presidential election and that congressional election, yet the realities of the Electoral College made him have to think about where his vote would have most impact.
Even though Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by about seven million popular votes nationwide, the candidates would have been tied in the Electoral College but for 44,000 votes across Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. About 67 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in 2020; if that same percentage holds this year, about 162 million people will vote. Is it really rational or ethical that 44,000 of those voters have substantially more power than everyone else? Of course not.
The Myth Of The Small State Benefit. The most common argument I hear in support of the Electoral College is that it somehow gives small states more of a voice in the presidential election. That could not be more wrong. Small states have been ignored for many decades. The only states that have a real voice in the presidential election are the swing states, which this year are Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. Just how "small" are these states?:
- Pennsylvania is the 5th largest state
- Georgia is the 8th largest state
- North Carolina is the 9th largest state
- Michigan is the 10th largest state
- Arizona is the 14th largest state
- Wisconsin is the 20th largest state
- Nevada is the 32nd largest state
Nevada (population 3.1 million) is the only one that I think can legitimately be called "small," and even IT is not in the bottom ten.
The Electoral College benefits "swing" states, which are defined as those in which the winner prevails by five percent of the vote or less. In a very real sense, 40+ states are pretty much irrelevant in the election, with candidates rarely showing up in them. This creates a bizarre phenomenon in which a state becoming more red or more blue takes it out of the presidential race, and thus does not get its needs addressed in a meaningful way. Ohio and Florida, for example, have become red to the point where very little presidential campaigning happens there anymore. This is tragic, as Ohio's manufacturing plight and Florida's status as ground zero for climate changes catastrophes make them places that should get sustained presidential campaign attention.
