It’s Time for Something New: Beck Williams
College, to the clear communication barrier it creates between the general population and the national government, people’s voices are far from being heard under the current Electoral College system. Tradition and “federalism” (i.e. the division of power between the national and state governments) do not justify the suppression of vulnerable citizens’ votes who are deeply affected by the election results. We must call into question the value of a U.S. citizen’s vote is as integral as ever, the origin and functionality of the Electoral College.
One of the primary issues with the Electoral College is that it has the potential to give smaller states equal or more power than larger states. The founders justified this by stating they didn’t want states with larger populations to dominate in elections. The Electoral College leaves Wyoming with three electoral votes despite having a population of 581,381 and California, having a population of about 40 million (approximately 68 times more people than Wyoming), has merely 54 electoral votes in comparison. In Wyoming, one electoral vote represents around 193,000 people, whereas in California one electoral vote represents 720,000 people. It is abundantly clear that smaller states shouldn’t have more power per capita than states with vastly higher populations.
If it isn’t already apparent, the framers were, without a doubt, considering states’ rights when bringing the Electoral College to fruition. The Brennan Center for Justice explains that the Electoral College was deeply rooted in preserving slavery, primarily because the Electoral College was created long before enslaved Africans could vote. Additionally, a 2010 population census proves that structural racism persists because of our electoral college, given that “five of the six states whose populations are 25% or more Black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections.” Of course, not every Black voter is voting blue, but statistics show that “Currently, 83% of Black voters are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 12% align with the GOP.” So, it is without a doubt that the Electoral College system reinforces white supremacy by protecting the political dominance of previous slaveholding states and further suppressing the votes of Black individuals.
On the other hand, many people think the Electoral College is necessary to prevent uninformed citizens from making bad choices. However, voters are sick of having limited control over who is elected in our country. Leaders who don’t belong in office still get elected because of the structural issues I have mentioned. If democracy was founded on the idea the government should be ruled by the people, then there shouldn’t be as many citizens who feel so detached from it.
To me, even though voting is vital, it is entirely valid for people to feel like their votes don’t count because in some cases, they really don’t. If one were living in an urban part of California or Texas during election season, their vote, compared to someone in rural North Dakota, is meaningless. Although the Electoral College will likely never be abolished, I believe there is a strong argument that it should be and, at the very least, we should talk about it. There are vibrant structural boundaries that are suppressing the votes of the American people which must be addressed on a federal level. These structural boundaries are far too fierce to be solved through traditional voting processes. Something greater must be done.
A Defense of America’s Esteemed Electoral Tradition: Will Sharp
Ours is a time of grave political and cultural polarization. I do not need to tell you this — you have heard it from professors, pundits and politicians to no end. Countless issues of immense moral gravity — indeed, of life and death for many — hang delicately in the midst of a grueling struggle between two sides that are not as ideologically defined than either would care to admit. Fundamentally, above (or below, depending on how you look at it) this battle of policy, is a system nearly as old as our country itself that determines how we elect the leaders we trust to arbitrate this fight. While this system is oft-maligned, I hope to engender in readers some respect, or at least understanding, for its role in our republican society.
For two centuries and change, the Electoral College has facilitated a presidential system that has consistently resulted in a prosperous and growing U.S. It has been imperfect, as the works of man are wont to be, but the story of the America the Electoral College built is generally one of forward and upward progress. While the winner of the college has been the same as the winner of the national popular vote in the vast majority of elections, when it has contradicted the popular vote it has produced fair and competent leaders. Among them are John Quincy Adams, who deftly steered American foreign policy in its early days, and Benjamin Harrison, who initiated the process of reigning in the more vicious elements of American capitalism.
Despite the college’s success rate, it is understandable that some feel dispossessed by its disproportionate allocation of electoral power to the states. Those, like myself, who were raised to recognize democracy as the gold standard of political systems unquestioningly, can find it difficult to cope with the fact the winner of an election might not always be the candidate who garners the most votes. Nonetheless, I am unsympathetic to those who decry the system as entirely useless or who point to it as an excuse to stay home on election day.
To begin with, the presidential election is only one issue that will appear on ballots this November. Texans will also have the opportunity to vote for a U.S. senator, congressmen, state officials and local and state ballot measures, to name a few. Our nation’s republican system is not headed by a dictator, it is headed by a president. Down-ballot elections are just as, if not more, important than the top of the ticket.
This matter aside, Texan votes matter even in the presidential election. While our state has voted solidly Republican since 1980, the margins have not always been insurmountable for Democrats. Donald Trump’s victory in the state in 2020 was by a margin less than half the size of Mitt Romney’s in 2012, and Republican dominance in presidential elections has been consistently shrinking over the last three election cycles. Those who would like to see the GOP unseated can only achieve this aim by participating in the electoral system, and those who support it can only maintain its hegemony by continuing to vote red.
To be clear: Yes, in all likelihood, Donald Trump is going to win this state. Yes, Texas’ winner-take-all system means that all of the state’s electoral votes will, in that case, go to him. Yet, this does not mean that votes on the other side do not count — to be blunt, losing does not mean the system was stacked against you. (This is a lesson Mr. Trump could also stand to learn). Even in a national popular vote, nearly half of the country would not be represented in the outcome because there is only one president. If all those who voted for the losing candidate stayed home, voting itself would become irrelevant.
I am far from in love with U.S.’ electoral system. It contains many flaws, and I myself would like to see several reforms to the way the Electoral College works, but to call for its abolition is rash and to refuse to go to the polls because of it is downright silly. I do not fault those who find voting unconscionable, but I do ask them to find a better reason than this.
