Does the Electoral College Need New Accreditation?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been gathering states willing to commit their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote for president as soon as states with a total of 270 electoral votes or more sign on. The NPVIC aims to elect the winner of the popular vote despite the Constitution specifying that the Electoral College vote determines the president. The NPVIC began after the Electoral College became a hot topic when George W. Bush won the presidency over Al Gore despite losing the “national popular vote” to him in 2000. It has been an even more urgent topic since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in similar fashion in 2016.

Some people are up-in-arms that the winners of the popular vote did not win these elections, all but declaring it a Constitutional crisis. But the Founders deliberately rejected a popular vote when writing the Constitution, and instead gave us the Electoral College, which consists of 50 individual state votes that each determine how that state’s electoral votes will be allocated. Before we entirely scrap the Founders’ plan that has endured for 250 years, we should ask why they rejected a popular vote, and determine if there are other less drastic measures that can improve the state of our presidential elections.

The Founders had several reasons for repudiating a national popular vote that are worth consideration. James Madison in particular worried that in a national popular vote, the minority would never be able to wield any power and would be subjugated to the whims of the majority. This same reasoning applied at a state level. Smaller states with fewer citizens worried that in subjecting themselves to stronger federal laws, the needs and values of their citizens would be easily overcome by the desires of the larger states. While the states constituting the country are somewhat more homogeneous today than at the founding, it is still a concern that there are enough popular votes in roughly seven large states to override the votes of all of the rural states combined. When everyone comes together to share a meal, the loudest voices should not dictate what everyone must eat. The Electoral College is meant to ensure that all voices are heard, not just the seven most populous states.

I cannot deny that the Electoral College today is somewhat flawed. However, I see elections with a different electoral winner than popular vote winner as more of a feature than a bug in the Electoral College system. Why would we even need an Electoral College if it always reflected the popular vote? With only five such outcomes in the history of our country, it certainly does not rise to a Constitutional crisis. Still, with the size of our country it seems somewhat ridiculous that only 538 electoral votes speak for the entirety of the diversity of our country. It seems even more ridiculous that in 48 states, especially those as diverse and populous as California and Texas, all of the state’s electoral votes go to whoever wins the popular vote in that state. Just as minority voices on the national level should not be marginalized, neither should they be on the state level either. Yet that is what happens when large states with many electoral votes allocate them all to the same candidate.

The NPVIC claims that they just want every vote to count, but it would actually disenfranchise even more people than the Electoral College does given that liberal urban-dwellers far outnumber more conservative rural citizens. So, what can be done? I propose several approaches.

First, require all states to allocate their electoral votes proportionally to their popular vote results just as Nebraska and Maine do now. This would restore the voice of the minorities within each state. But, this would also require a constitutional amendment, which though I believe it can pass, will take time. We need a temporary measure that will accomplish some improvement in the meantime.

Therefore, I propose that we immediately seek to revoke the 1929 Permanent Apportionment that capped the number of Representatives in the House at 435. Since then, no matter how much our population has grown, no additional Representatives have been allocated. Instead, they are just re-apportioned every ten years after the census. Not only has this led to an Electoral College that does not adequately represent the people, it also has led to a far less representative House of Representatives. Each House member on average represents roughly 615,000 people, although that number varies by state anywhere from just under 200,000 to over 750,000. Research has shown that a good number of representatives for a population is approximately equal to the cube root of the population. For the U.S. that number should be roughly 690 representing an average of roughly 475,000 people each. This would lead to a House of Representatives that is better able to actually represent its constituents. It would also mean a total of 793 Electoral College votes. This with the recommended constitutional amendment would give us an Electoral College that more closely represents the diversity of our country without marginalizing anyone’s voice too much.

To summarize, the Electoral College is not fatally flawed; in fact, it is necessary. It does, however, need some changes. Reversing the 1929 law that capped the number of Representatives would be an easy and effective starting point. Passing a constitutional amendment that would dictate to states how they must apportion their electoral votes would go a long way toward restoring some balance. While it is good for states to run their own elections as they see fit, the move to allocate all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state was a move to retain more power. That power rightly belongs to the people, and it is time to give them their voice back. The NPVIC won’t do that, but these two changes will.

I encourage you to learn more about the reasons behind the Electoral College by reading James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention or the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist №10. Then, contact your Senator and Representative to suggest they introduce legislation to make the changes recommended here. Last, speak to your friends and family about this issue. Many people support eliminating the Electoral College because they do not understand why a national popular vote would be harmful. You can help spread the word that it is not as fair a solution as it seems.

Read a more in-depth policy memo about this issue here.

References

Cohen, A. (2019, March 14). The national popular vote, explained: The Electoral College is one of the most undemocratic features of U.S. elections. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/national-popular-vote-explained

Madison, J. (1787, November 22). The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787. National Archives: Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178

Skelley, G. (2021, August 12). How the House got stuck at 435 seats: After 110 years, a look at the benefits — and drawbacks — to expanding the chamber. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-house-got-stuck-at-435-seats/

Vyse, G. (2024). The Electoral College. In CQ Researcher. CQ Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/cqresrre20240510