As the presidential election gets ever closer and the candidates make their final pitches, a reality is ever developing according to polling. While it seems Republican candidate Donald Trump has a fighting chance at retaking the White House, current Vice President Kamala Harris leads by around 2% in popular vote polls, which, if we go by 2020 vote totals, means that Harris could win the popular vote by over 2 million votes but still not be elected president. Why does Donald Trump have a good chance at reclaiming the presidency though? Because of the electoral college system we have in place.
If Trump does win this election only by the electoral college, he will be the first president ever to be elected to two terms without winning the popular vote once. This system, however, has not only benefited Trump. In 2004, had Democrat John Kerry flipped 120,000 voters in the state of Ohio, he would have won 272-266 against incumbent George W. Bush. Instead, Bush won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. In 2000, incumbent Vice President Al Gore lost the election to Bush 271-267, even though Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes.
With this system has come the culture in which politicians only predominantly visit certain states that polling shows are close enough to go either way. These “swing states” dominate elections, being the most visited by campaigns during election years. However, it needs to be asked if this is fair to the electorate and the citizens of the nation. The seven swing states in this election only make up about 61 million people in their population, despite the nation itself having 337 million people in it. This means that during election season, the candidates pay attention to less than 20% of the total population of the country, despite them running for an office that governs the whole country.
Would it be fair if, during a baseball game, the team with the most points loses simply because the opposing team stepped on the right bases at the right time? Or in football, for a team to outscore its opponent but lose because the opponent gained more total yards?
Our electoral system is heavily flawed and in desperate need of some sort of reform. This system encourages candidates to isolate some 270 million people in the country, and since you need a majority of 50% of electoral college votes cast, it also has had an effect on the reign of the two dominant political parties, even whenever those parties are highly unpopular. The system has also had a hand in further dividing the nation, with many feeling as if their vote is not a vote in favor of their chosen candidate, but instead simply a vote against the “other” candidate.
There are a few ways that these concerns could be addressed. The country could switch to a run-off-like system in which if no candidate reaches a 50% threshold in the popular vote, the top two with the most votes are sent to another election, where the winner then is elected into office. This system also encourages more candidates from parties other than the Democrats or Republicans to actually be seen as viable candidates, rather than in the present system where a vote for a third party candidate is often seen as a “spoiler,” especially in swing states.
Another alternative would be switching to the relatively new ranked-choice voting system for choosing candidates. This system entails voters rank their top choices of candidates from one to four, with one being the candidate they want most, and four being the candidate they want least but still would accept. If no candidate reaches an outright majority in the first round, then it is sent to a runoff-like system, where the candidate with the most votes in that election wins the race. Both of these systems, however, encourage voters to actually look into the candidates they’re voting for, instead of simply voting straight ticket or feeling obliged to vote for a candidate simply because they’re a Democrat or Republican.
Or they could switch to a simple popular vote system, where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don’t have a technical majority. Many large democracies, such as Mexico or Indonesia, follow this system. This also allows for candidates to campaign with a platform that’s more aligned with the country at large, rather than just select voter bases. With this focus on the general public, the approval ratings, at least of these two countries’ leaders, have shown that a popular vote system produces strong leaders, with Indonesia’s president having a “trust” rating in the 70s, while Mexico’s won her election by over 60%.
Whenever you want to be the leader of the United States, all voters should have a say in your governance, instead of a select few who are highlighted simply because of the states in which they live. Even in the instance of a close popular vote election, at least the winner will still have the highest amount of the electorate supporting them.
The president should feel the need to at least see their constituents in every state, and the current system in place does not place the need to meet the most constituents possible. It instead places the need of candidates to simply win the right constituents, instead of the most constituents they can. This seems highly unfair for a country that takes much pride in a system that proclaims that anyone, no matter background, race, belief or religion can make true change in the world through this office, and a system such as ours should not prevent them from possibly fighting for that change. The current electoral college can prohibit that change.
Ruling without the majority
As the presidential election gets ever closer and the candidates make their final pitches, a reality is ever developing according to polling. While it seems Republican candidate Donald Trump has a fighting chance at retaking the White House, current Vice President Kamala Harris leads by around 2% in popular vote polls, which, if we go by 2020 vote totals, means that Harris could win the popular vote by over 2 million votes but still not be elected president. Why does Donald Trump have a good chance at reclaiming the presidency though? Because of the electoral college system we have in place.
If Trump does win this election only by the electoral college, he will be the first president ever to be elected to two terms without winning the popular vote once. This system, however, has not only benefited Trump. In 2004, had Democrat John Kerry flipped 120,000 voters in the state of Ohio, he would have won 272-266 against incumbent George W. Bush. Instead, Bush won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. In 2000, incumbent Vice President Al Gore lost the election to Bush 271-267, even though Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes.
With this system has come the culture in which politicians only predominantly visit certain states that polling shows are close enough to go either way. These “swing states” dominate elections, being the most visited by campaigns during election years. However, it needs to be asked if this is fair to the electorate and the citizens of the nation. The seven swing states in this election only make up about 61 million people in their population, despite the nation itself having 337 million people in it. This means that during election season, the candidates pay attention to less than 20% of the total population of the country, despite them running for an office that governs the whole country.
Would it be fair if, during a baseball game, the team with the most points loses simply because the opposing team stepped on the right bases at the right time? Or in football, for a team to outscore its opponent but lose because the opponent gained more total yards?
Our electoral system is heavily flawed and in desperate need of some sort of reform. This system encourages candidates to isolate some 270 million people in the country, and since you need a majority of 50% of electoral college votes cast, it also has had an effect on the reign of the two dominant political parties, even whenever those parties are highly unpopular. The system has also had a hand in further dividing the nation, with many feeling as if their vote is not a vote in favor of their chosen candidate, but instead simply a vote against the “other” candidate.
There are a few ways that these concerns could be addressed. The country could switch to a run-off-like system in which if no candidate reaches a 50% threshold in the popular vote, the top two with the most votes are sent to another election, where the winner then is elected into office. This system also encourages more candidates from parties other than the Democrats or Republicans to actually be seen as viable candidates, rather than in the present system where a vote for a third party candidate is often seen as a “spoiler,” especially in swing states.
Another alternative would be switching to the relatively new ranked-choice voting system for choosing candidates. This system entails voters rank their top choices of candidates from one to four, with one being the candidate they want most, and four being the candidate they want least but still would accept. If no candidate reaches an outright majority in the first round, then it is sent to a runoff-like system, where the candidate with the most votes in that election wins the race. Both of these systems, however, encourage voters to actually look into the candidates they’re voting for, instead of simply voting straight ticket or feeling obliged to vote for a candidate simply because they’re a Democrat or Republican.
Or they could switch to a simple popular vote system, where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don’t have a technical majority. Many large democracies, such as Mexico or Indonesia, follow this system. This also allows for candidates to campaign with a platform that’s more aligned with the country at large, rather than just select voter bases. With this focus on the general public, the approval ratings, at least of these two countries’ leaders, have shown that a popular vote system produces strong leaders, with Indonesia’s president having a “trust” rating in the 70s, while Mexico’s won her election by over 60%.
Whenever you want to be the leader of the United States, all voters should have a say in your governance, instead of a select few who are highlighted simply because of the states in which they live. Even in the instance of a close popular vote election, at least the winner will still have the highest amount of the electorate supporting them.
The president should feel the need to at least see their constituents in every state, and the current system in place does not place the need to meet the most constituents possible. It instead places the need of candidates to simply win the right constituents, instead of the most constituents they can. This seems highly unfair for a country that takes much pride in a system that proclaims that anyone, no matter background, race, belief or religion can make true change in the world through this office, and a system such as ours should not prevent them from possibly fighting for that change. The current electoral college can prohibit that change.