As the 2024 election approaches, Americans are once again inundated with predictions about how battleground states could decide the outcome. Political analysts map out potential paths to victory: If one candidate secures Pennsylvania and Arizona, Georgia may not be necessary; if another wins Michigan and Ohio, their opponent must take Georgia. Websites like 270toWin even let users explore different electoral scenarios. But is this complex choreography still serving our democracy? Should we be satisfied with a system that makes voters question if their vote matters in states that reliably vote red or blue?
The Founding Fathers thought the Electoral College was critical to our political system. Here’s why.
The Creation of the Electoral College
The Electoral College was created during the 1787 Constitutional Convention to address three main concerns:
- Balance of Power Between States : The founders feared large states would overpower smaller ones in choosing the president.
- Skepticism of Direct Democracy : The founders were wary of direct democracy, believing the general population might not have enough information to make such crucial decisions.
- Nationwide Representation : There was concern that presidential candidates would focus only on densely populated areas, ignoring smaller regions.
This system became law in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Electoral votes were originally reserved for states only; territories were excluded until 1961 when the 23rd Amendment granted electoral votes to Washington, DC. To this day, residents of U.S. territories like Puerto Rico and Guam cannot vote in presidential elections
Present-Day Debates
There are two sides to the debate: abolitionists who want to eliminate the Electoral College and traditionalists who want to preserve it as is.
Abolitionist Arguments
- More Democracy : Critics say the Electoral College gives disproportionate influence to smaller states. Abolishing it would ensure equal weight for every vote.
- Popular Will : The Electoral College has led to presidents winning without the popular vote, as seen in the 2000 and 2016 elections.
- Boost Voter Participation : Without the Electoral College, campaigns would target all voters nationwide, likely increasing turnout.
- Reduce Polarization : The winner-take-all system fosters divisive politics in swing states. A popular vote could reduce polarization by making every vote count equally.
- Simplify Elections : A popular vote is more straightforward and eliminates complications like faithless electors.
Traditionalist Arguments
- Protecting Smaller States : The Electoral College ensures smaller states have a say in the election. Without it, states like Wyoming could be ignored in favor of large population centers.
- Encouraging National Campaigns : Candidates campaign across diverse states, not just urban hubs.
- Historical Stability: The Electoral College has provided stability and continuity in presidential elections since its inception.
- Preventing Urban Dominance : A direct popular vote could give cities undue influence over rural areas.
- Reducing Election Disputes : A national popular vote could create chaos with recounts in close races, whereas the Electoral College contains disputes to individual states.
The Nebraska-Maine Solution
The Nebraska-Maine Solution offers a middle ground between the current system and a national popular vote. These two states use a district-based approach, splitting their electoral votes between candidates. Two votes go to the statewide popular vote winner, while the rest are allocated based on results in each congressional district.
Though rare, electoral votes have been split in these states. In 2008, Barack Obama won Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District while John McCain won the rest of the state. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won Maine’s statewide vote, but Donald Trump took one electoral vote by winning the 2nd Congressional District.
This method reflects voter preferences across a state and could be a more representative alternative to the winner-take-all system. Abolitionists might appreciate its increased representation, while traditionalists may value its preservation of smaller states’ influence and historical precedent.
Could This Happen
States could adopt the district-based system through various pathways:
- State Legislation : State legislatures could pass laws to adopt a district-based system.
- Voter Initiatives : In some states, citizens could propose the change through referendums.
- National-Level Adoption : Although more complex, a constitutional amendment or federal legislation could push for a nationwide district-based system.
While a national shift faces hurdles, state-level adoption could pave the way for broader change if enough states follow Nebraska and Maine’s lead.
Press Play
As the 2024 election nears, we must ask ourselves: Do we want to repeat the same electoral process in 2028, or are we ready for change? The Nebraska-Maine Solution offers a balanced path forward—one that better represents voter preferences while preserving key aspects of the Electoral College. The choice is ours: Will we take a step toward reform, or stick to the status quo?