Make Way For the Popular Vote

Jasper Swartz
CAP 9
Marc Grossman
4/1/19
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
Make Way For The Popular Vote

When most people think of a democracy, the image that comes to mind is of citizens

casting votes that are counted and used to determine the leader favored by the people. If someone

were to witness an election in Switzerland, Brazil, Australia, Ireland, or around 65 of the 125

countries around the world with a democracy, this would be exactly the case (Drew DeSilver).

But in the United States, the country that so greatly prides itself for its democracy, the system is

much more complicated. Instead, the United States uses the Electoral College system to

determine the president. In the Electoral College, each state has a certain number of electors

determined by its population. People in each state vote for the candidate of their choice and that

state’s electors vote in the Electoral College for the candidate that their state has chosen.

Whichever candidate receives the most Electoral College votes wins the presidency. In many

instances in the history of the United States, the outcome of the Electoral College was unclear

and extra measures had to be taken to choose the president. The United States should amend the

12th amendment and abolish the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote as the method of

choosing the president because this flawed system gives some people’s votes more weight than

others, it was made to fit the needs of our country hundreds of years ago, and it makes it possible

to win the majority of votes, but lose the Electoral College.

In a country that uses the popular vote to decide elections, the place where you vote

makes no difference at all. But in the United States, the exact state and district where you cast

your vote could make all the difference in the outcome of the election. During many elections,

voters living in states where they feel that their vote won’t make an impact such as New York,

pour into surrounding swing states to campaign for their candidate. In the 2008 election
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
“​Californians who [were] eager to have an impact in the presidential election, Republicans as

well as Democrats, [headed] to the nearby swing states of Nevada and Colorado by the hundreds,

even thousands, during the home stretch” (CBS News). ​In California, a vote for a Republican

makes no difference whatsoever because the state is so predominantly liberal that the electoral

votes are almost guaranteed to go to the Democratic candidate. But a vote for a Republican

candidate in an uncertain swing state like Pennsylvania could easily help to get the Republican

candidate the precious electoral votes and change the outcome of the election. This system also

brings down voting participation in certain states like New York or Alabama with large

majorities of either Democrats or Republicans. When people already know which way their state

is going to swing, many question the point of voting at all. According to Fair Vote, “In the 12

most competitive states in 2004, voter turnout rose 9% to 63%. In the 12 least competitive states,

voter turnout rose only 2% to 53%.” In other democratic nations like Australia or Germany,

voter turnout is much higher than in the United States. In fact, “​The 55.7% VAP turnout in 2016

puts the U.S. behind most of its peers in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD), most of whose members are highly developed, democratic states.

Looking at the most recent nationwide election in each OECD nation, the U.S. placed 26th out of

32. (Pew Research Center). That being said, the other countries do not have a Federalist system

like the United States where states are offered specific powers in the Constitution. However, If

the United States used a simple popular vote system as the method for electing the president

rather than the Electoral College, votes cast in different states would have the exact same impact.

This shift would increase voter turnout out as a whole because, as seen in other countries, people
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
would be more likely to register to vote if they thought that their vote was actually going towards

their candidate.

The Electoral College was created in 1787 when the Founding Fathers wrote the

Constitution. America then was very different from America now. There were fewer states and

they thought of themselves less as Americans but rather Pennsylvanians or Virginians or

whichever state they belonged to. The electoral college was a system tailored to fit these

disjointed identities. At that time, the Union was not secure and the founders wanted to make

sure that all states felt equally represented so that they would want to stay a part of the country.

Nowadays, the Union, while being far from perfect, is not in any real danger of collapsing. There

is no reason to think that any state would actually secede if faced with the popular vote. The

Founding Fathers also worried that voters would not have adequate information regarding

candidates from outside of their state. But in the age of the internet, voters have access to a

plethora of data regarding each candidate to help them to make their decision. The founders also

harboured a great fear of popular sovereignty. The average citizen in those times was uneducated

and, according to the founders, not fit to make an informed decision about whom to vote for. The

Electoral College provided a small filter between the overall demands of the people and what the

founders thought was correct. George Mason of Virginia said at the Constitutional Convention in

defence of the Electoral College, “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper

character for a chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man”

(McCarthy). However, although the founders may have argued that the Electoral College was put

in place to prevent mob rule, the real issue at the root of the Electoral College was slavery. In a

direct election, the North clearly outnumbered the South in terms of eligible voters as much of
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
the South’s population consisted of slaves. However, under the three-fifths compromise, the

South’s population total that counts towards the amount of electoral votes was boosted by the

slave population (Akhil Reed Amar). This gave the South more power in elections. Without

slavery, the South would have had significantly less power in the Electoral College. The

Electoral College exists in part because of slavery, and for that reason it should be abandoned.

Another large flaw in the Electoral College system, is that on multiple occasions it has

happened that the candidate who won the popular vote and therefore the most overall votes, lost

the Electoral College and the Presidency. This means that the president might be the candidate

that the majority of voters did not choose. A true democracy should reflect the wishes of a

majority of the people. The most recent instance in which the winner of the popular vote was not

the presidential nominee was the 2016 election. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the

popular vote by 2.8 million, yet lost the Electoral College by a surprising 77 electoral votes

(Sarah Begley). The election went to Republican nominee Donald Trump, despite the glaring

difference in votes. This is not the only example in which the popular candidate lost to the

winner of the Electoral College. ​In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won the electoral vote

271 to 266 and became the 43rd president. However, his opponent, Al Gore, won the popular

vote by about 540,000 more than Bush (Infobase Learning).

The biggest argument in favor of the Electoral College is the power it gives to smaller

states. Without an Electoral College system, it is speculated that candidates would solely cater to

the needs of voters living in large cities and completely disregard voters in smaller states with

lower populations. For example, farmers living in agricultural states such as Idaho might have

their needs completely ignored because their community is so small that candidates wouldn’t
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
care enough to win their vote. This is not necessarily true. In fact, the popular vote might protect

rural voters more than the Electoral College. With our current system, candidates must appeal to

rural voters in swing states. With a popular vote, candidates would be forced to cater to rural

voters across the nation, rather than in each unique state. For example, rural voters in Mississippi

are guaranteed to support Republican candidates and are therefore ignored. The popular vote

would incentivise candidates to create policies that benefit rural voters all around the country.

The Electoral College also ensures that other states are ignored, just in a different way. When

candidates are running their campaigns, their main focus is on the precious swing states.

Predominantly red or blue states such as New York or Mississippi are altogether ignored: why

cater to a state where you already know whether you will win or lose? The outcome of swing

states are unknown, so candidates focus much of their energy trying to win their favor. Either

with the Electoral College or the popular vote, candidates will always ignore some areas and

focus on others. In the end, the people will decide who they will support.

The Electoral College is a flawed system that should no longer be used to decide the

President of the United States. It gives some votes more power than others depending on the

location of the voter. A popular vote system would fix this problem and make all votes count

equally. The Electoral College system was created for our country hundreds of years ago and the

reasons that the founders decided to use it no longer apply to contemporary politics. It was

created in part to give the South more power in order to make up for the voter population

disparity created by slavery. It has also happened multiple times in the history of our nation that

the winner of the popular vote did not win the election. The president should be the candidate

that the majority of voters want. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it forces
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
candidates to appeal to smaller minorities that they might not have otherwise catered to.

However, with the electoral system fixed states are ignored instead. Switching from the Electoral

College to the popular vote would solve all of these issues and make the presidential elections

more democratic as a whole.

Works Cited
● Amar, Akhil Reed. "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists." ​Time​,
time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/.
● "Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state." ​Pew Research
Center,​
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/among-democracies-u-s-stands-out-in-how-i
t-chooses-its-head-of-state/. Accessed 24 Mar. 2019.
● "By the Numbers: Electoral College." ​Issues & Controversies,​ Infobase Learning, 27
Feb. 2017,http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=16342. Accessed 24 Mar.
2019.
● CBS News.​ www.cbsnews.com/news/volunteers-on-the-move-to-swing-states/. Accessed
25 Mar. 2019.
● "Electoral College: Faithless Electors." ​American Government,​ Roberts, Robert North,
Scott John Hammond, and Valerie A. Sulfaro. "Electoral College: Faithless Electors."
American Government, ABC-CLIO, 2019,
americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1771493. Accessed 24 Mar. 2019.
● "The Shrinking Battleground." ​Fair Vote,​
www.fairvote.org/search_results?q=voter%20turnout%20in%20swing%20states. stas on
voter turnout
● Time​. time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/.
● "U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout." ​Pew Research Center,​
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-cou
ntries/.

Annotated Bibliography
Works Cited
● Amar, Akhil Reed. "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists." ​Time​,
time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/. ​This article provides a history of
the creation of the Electoral College and its roots in slavery. Secondary Source.
● "Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state." ​Pew Research
Center,​
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/among-democracies-u-s-stands-out-in-how-i
t-chooses-its-head-of-state/. Accessed 24 Mar. 2019. ​Information on how other countries
elect their leaders and what makes the United States unique. Secondary Source.
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
● "By the Numbers: Electoral College." ​Issues & Controversies,​ Infobase Learning, 27
Feb. 2017,http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=16342. Accessed 24 Mar.
2019. ​Information on the amount of electoral votes per state and electoral votes collected
in previous elections. Primary Source.
● CBS News.​ www.cbsnews.com/news/volunteers-on-the-move-to-swing-states/. Accessed
25 Mar. 2019. ​An article from the 2008 election concerning volunteers campaigning in
swing states. Primary Source.
● "Electoral College." ​American Government,​ "Electoral College." American Government,
ABC-CLIO, 2019, americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/201326. Accessed
24 Mar. 2019. ​A history of the Electoral College. Secondary Source.
● "The Electoral College Explained." ​Issues & Controversies in American History.
Infobase Learning, 25 Apr. 2006. Web. 18 Feb. 2019. . ​Electoral process explained.
Secondary Source.
● "Electoral College: Faithless Electors." ​American Government,​ Roberts, Robert North,
Scott John Hammond, and Valerie A. Sulfaro. "Electoral College: Faithless Electors."
American Government, ABC-CLIO, 2019,
americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1771493. Accessed 24 Mar. 2019. ​A
list of faithless electors throughout history. Secondary Source.
● "Key Events in the History of the Electoral College." ​Issues & Controversies,​ Infobase
Learning, 21 Feb. 2017, http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=16334.
Accessed 18 Feb. 2019. ​Timeline of the history of the Electoral College. Secondary
Source.
● "The Shrinking Battleground." ​Fair Vote,​
www.fairvote.org/search_results?q=voter%20turnout%20in%20swing%20states. ​Data on
voter turnout throughout the years and in different states. Primary Source.
● Supreme Court Databases​. ​EBSCOhost​,
web.a.ebscohost.com/src_ic/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=ce59ce7d-5ef3-4101-afcf-
ad94c3ed34f1%40sdc-v-sessmgr01. Accessed 18 Feb. 2019. ​Many different opinions on
the electoral college debate. Secondary Source.
● Time​. time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/. ​Information on the 2016
election and how many votes it was won by. Primary Source.
● "21 Special Message to the Congress Proposing Constitutional Amendments Relating to
Terms for House Members and the Electoral College System. January 20, 1966."
EBSCOhost​,
web.b.ebscohost.com/src_ic/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=7f737ffc-8155-4ae2-be08-df864062
7fda%40sessionmgr120&bdata=#AN=32356615&db=khh.​ Lyndon B Johnson against
the Electoral college to Congress in 1966. Primary Source.
● "U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout." ​Pew Research Center,​
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-cou
Jasper Swartz
Blue Group
ntries/. ​Voter turnout information in other countries versus the United States. Primary
Source.