The Electoral College makes a mockery of the US | Opinion

Many Americans don't want to hear it, but the Electoral College is an extremely harmful system that severely distorts the will of the voter, produces crazy results, and suppresses participation – since most of us live in places where the outcome is predetermined.

It also makes the United States a global joke because of its apparent inability to hold reasonable elections. I have been involved in reporting on about 100 countries as a foreign correspondent, and I can say with certainty that none of the democracies have a system anywhere near as crazy.

That's why former President Donald Trump could win Tuesday's election despite receiving far fewer votes than Vice President Kamala Harris, and it would be the third time in seven rounds (after 2000 and 2016) that this has happened. Because as every child knows, the “plebiscite” means nothing. Do you know what a synonym for “plebiscite” is? The “vote” – and in any other democracy it means a lot.

This has led to widespread discontent. According to polls, around 60 percent were in favor of a nationwide popular vote for the president. And yet most people also believe that such change is not possible – a disgracefully undemocratic situation.

How did we get here?

The Electoral College was created in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention, when only 13 states formed a union – the original colonies that declared their independence from Great Britain. And almost all of the reasons for this no longer apply – starting with the main goal of equalizing influence between more populous and less populous states. Since each state held its own elections, it was assumed that a slight overrepresentation of the slightly smaller candidates would force candidates to pay attention to them.

But first of all, mass communication has made face-to-face campaigns less important today. More importantly, the massive concentration of support now means that all but a handful of “battleground states” always vote a certain way and can be ignored in this system. And the states that happen to “benefit”—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and a few others—are generally by no means the smaller ones. Contrary to the plan, these can and will be safely ignored.

Absurdly, voters in the three largest cities – New York, Los Angeles and Chicago – are also completely ignored; Candidates have no incentive to campaign in these urban centers because the states in which they represent are reliably Democratic. In a direct election in which every vote counts, American presidential candidates would appear there, as would French candidates in Paris, Lyon and Marseille.

Second, the elite framers feared “mob rule” and wanted a buffer between the public and the outcome by trusting that voters would make an informed decision. But voters are now no longer directly relevant unless there is a tie. They do not make decisions, but rather are human representatives for the “points” awarded by the states.

The system was also designed to maintain the states as independent entities, mirroring the federal system. That may sound right, and it certainly reflected the hesitation the 13 colonies felt about forming a single nation. But it no longer corresponds to reality at all.

The United States Is a country – one that claims to be the most important in the world – even if, like everywhere, there are local and regional peculiarities. Many French people are proud of Provence, but they are still French; An American may feel an affinity for New Jersey, but with few exceptions, the primary allegiance is to the country, not the state.

The final reason for the system was logistical: At the time, travel and communications restrictions made a direct national referendum challenging. But now exactly the opposite is the case. A simple common system would eliminate the tension caused by each state having different systems that allow different shenanigans, a la Florida's hanging children.

Furthermore, at the time the Electoral College was created, there was not such a large difference in the size of states. Virginia was almost twice as populous as number two Pennsylvania, but only about ten times larger than Delaware, the smallest state.

Compare that to today, when California, with 39 million residents, is 67 times larger than Wyoming. But because of the way the number of voters is calculated, the number of votes is only 18 times that number (54 versus at least three). That means one vote in Wyoming is mathematically worth almost four votes in California. This is like allowing every weirdo to buy assault rifles, unique in the world and not in a good way. It is a fundamental, blatant violation of the basic democratic principle of “one person, one vote.”

Even worse is the Senate, which is more powerful than the presidency in that it can remove the president. Because of the same exaggerated respect for the states, each elects two of the 100 senators. This means that a Senate vote in Wyoming is worth 67 points in California and that the 25 smallest states, with about 18 percent of the state's population, can control the Senate. Since the vast majority of these smaller states are reliably Republican, and that party appeals most to rural voters, this means that the system is heavily rigged in that party's favor.

Other countries with district-based systems also experience distortions when support is “wasted” through excessive concentration in certain areas. It's the same in Britain – but there the results are never as crazy as in America because the districts are at least roughly the same size.

There is almost no way to change this madness because it is tied to the Constitution and changes must be ratified by three-quarters of the states — meaning many of the reliably red states would have to agree to end their own privileges.

It's not sustainable. It seems too unfair and will cause too much frustration in blue America, which disproportionately increases the nation's wealth (Brookings found that counties that voted for Joe Biden in 2020 accounted for 70 percent of US GDP).

If current patterns continue, secession talks can be expected from the predominantly democratic regions of the Pacific and the Northeast. How long will they tolerate Republican obstruction of gun control or health care reform, or perhaps a nationwide abortion ban? Because secession requires a nearly impossible constitutional change, violence may ensue.

There is a possible way out: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This strangely little-noticed initiative offers a practical solution without having to amend the Constitution: it is an agreement between states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote, regardless of the state vote. The pact won't go into effect until enough states join to reach the 270 electoral votes needed for victory.

As of 2024, the NPVIC has taken effect in 16 states and Washington, DC, representing a combined 209 electoral votes. It has gained traction in big blue states like California and New York, but also in smaller states like Vermont and Delaware. To activate the pact, an additional 61 electoral votes are required. Target states for possible inclusion in the pact are Minnesota (10 electoral votes), Nevada (6 electoral votes), Maine (4 electoral votes) and Michigan (15 electoral votes). Although Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes) is a crucial state in this debate, efforts to pass NPVIC legislation have repeatedly failed in the state legislature despite some public support.

Pennsylvania's hesitation reflects a larger national trend: swing states, which currently hold disproportionate influence in presidential elections, are resisting the pact. However, if it prevails, the NPVIC would mean that every vote counts and the winner would be the person who received the most support. It would also mean that candidates would not have to focus exclusively on swing states, but would be forced to appeal to voters across the country, including in smaller states that are not swing states – as the drafters had hoped!

As the country struggles with polarization and declining trust in institutions, this could help restore trust in politics. And since the NPVIC offers the only solution and people are people, I have some urgent advice: look for a more memorable name!

Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and author of two books. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.