The electoral college is the system used in the United States to elect the President and the Vice President. It dates back to the days of founding fathers, who included the system in the Constitution. However, the Electoral College has become quite controversial in more recent years and is considered outdated by many people. The system has especially been under criticism lately because of the recent election in which the Republican candidate Donald Trump lost the popular vote, but secured enough electoral votes to win the election. These problems have prompted researchers and scholars to develop ideas for reforming the electoral college. The different methods for reforming the electoral college, each coming with their pros and cons, raise questions: which method is best and is it likely to be implemented? One method that is gaining support is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would allow electoral college reform without a Constitutional amendment. The compact allows for a nationwide popular vote while the electoral college remains intact. Although there is no perfect solution for reforming the electoral college, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is the best option as it would better represent voters and has a good chance of being enacted.

Many people consider the electoral college to be outdated. It was created to avoid certain problems that were prominent when the Constitution was drafted, such as uninformed voters. The founders did not fully trust voters to select the president because information about candidates was not widely available throughout the country. Because of this, voters were not thought to be qualified to elect a president on their own. However, we do not face that same problem today because we have made many technological advances in communication such as radio, television, newspapers, social media, and news websites since then, which allow the people to educate themselves about candidates (Jefferson-Jenkins).

Another problematic situation caused by the electoral college is one in which a candidate loses the popular vote but still wins the election. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win an election, so with the correct combination of states, that winner could secure plenty of electoral votes without winning the popular vote. This has happened in five different elections throughout history in the United States. In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but lost the election to John Quincy Adams because he secured less than half of the electoral votes. Again, in 1876, candidate Samuel Tilden won the national popular vote, but lost by one electoral vote to his opponent, Rutherford B. Hayes. Then, in the election of 1888, Grover Cleveland received the most popular votes, but lost to Benjamin Harrison, who received the most electoral votes. (Revesz). In 2000, former President, George W. Bush, secured 271 electoral votes, while Al Gore, his opponent received 266. However, Bush received approximately 500,000 fewer votes in the popular vote than Gore did. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won 304 electoral votes while Hillary Clinton received 227. However, in this election, Trump lost the popular vote by roughly three million votes ("Historical Election Results”). This means that a majority of the nation did not vote for a certain candidate, but because of the electoral college, that candidate was able to win the election.

There are many other issues pertaining to the electoral college system. Critics of the electoral college also claim that the system causes candidates to focus on swing states and ignore states that have less of an influence on the election. In fact, usually less than twenty states are considered to be swing, or battleground, states. This means that around half of the country is ignored by presidential candidates during campaigning (Patel). The electoral college system also makes nearly impossible for a third party to win an election, or even come close to doing so (Black). The system also creates voter apathy and a lack of political efficacy; people do not always feel like their vote matters because of the winner-take-all principle. It violates the idea of “one person, one vote.” For example, a person could vote for one candidate, but the opponent wins the electoral votes for their state, so essentially, the one voter’s voice is not heard. Additionally, a number of states are usually dominated by the Democratic party or the Republican party, meaning that the party’s candidate is likely to secure the electoral votes for that state. This might discourage a Democrat from voting in a state that typically turns “red,” where a Republican is likely to win. Similarly, a Republican might decide not to vote because the state in which they live usually turns “blue,” which means the Democratic candidate usually wins. 

Yet another challenge to the electoral college are “faithless electors,” or electors who vote against the state’s popular vote for whom they want. Although there are laws in place against this act, there is no way to enforce it, so it is still a possibility (Rudalevige). In fact, this actually happened in the election of 1976 when an elector from Washington cast his vote for Reagan, who ran in the primaries and lost the Republican nomination to Ford, even though Ford won the popular vote in his state (Feerick). There have only been nine occurrences of faithless electors, and the outcome of an election has never been changed by one. However, a large group of faithless electors could drastically affect the outcome of an election (Patel). The electoral college system has clearly stirred up controversy and has many problems.

If the current system is so problematic, then why not do away with it? The electoral college is written in the Constitution and completely getting rid of the system would require a Constitutional amendment. Amending the Constitution is possible, but it is not easy. In fact, more than 700 amendments have been proposed in regards to reforming, or even eliminating, the electoral college, but legislators did not provide much support and the amendments were not passed (Bugh). A Constitutional amendment to reform or eliminate the electoral college is just not likely to be implemented. Amending the Constitution is a long process and it is unlikely that the amendment would receive the required two-thirds of the votes from both the House and the Senate. The difficulty of amending the Constitution is what has prompted researchers and scholars to brainstorm ideas for reforming the electoral college that would not require a Constitutional amendment.

The Constitution allows states to determine the method by which they allocate their electoral votes (Bugh). Consequently, many of the proposed ideas for electoral college reform involve changing how states distribute their votes. One proposed method, which has already been used by Maine and Nebraska for years, is districting. In this method, states are divided into districts and the electoral votes are based on the votes from the assigned districts. However, this method brings forward gerrymandering, which is the practice of drawing districts in order to secure votes for certain candidates. Another method, similar to districting, is apportionment, which “awards electors in approximate proportion to the popular vote in a state” (Bugh). There is another system for reform known as the “national bonus plan.” In this method of reform, the winner of the national popular vote is awarded two bonus electoral votes per state, as well as the District of Columbia, resulting in a total of 102 bonus electoral votes (Schlesinger). However, this method is slightly flawed because in order to win an election, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes, and 102 bonus votes would not necessarily guarantee a victory. It depends on the combination of states won by each candidate, and how many electoral votes they already have. Ranked choice voting is another idea for reform. In this method, voters select their first, second, and third choices for candidates so they do not “waste” their votes. The problem with the ranked choice system is that is makes voting a longer, more complicated process (Pierce). None of these options have gained much support or popularity among legislators.

One viable option for reforming the electoral college is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is enacted, the electoral college will remain intact but each state that joins the compact will award its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The Constitution allows states to collaborate and solve problems through interstate compacts. The compact would “change the Electoral College from an institution that reflects the voters’ state-by-state choices” into an institution that reflects the choices of the voters of the entire nation (Koza, et al. 258). According to Koza, this system allows states to make changes to the electoral college while “retaining our federalist system of state control over elections.” In order for the compact to be executed, the total number of electoral votes amongst the member states must add up to at least 270, the number of electoral votes it takes for a candidate to win an election. Regardless of membership status, every state’s popular vote tally would be counted towards the national total. 

In his book about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Koza lays out the provisions for the implementation of the interstate compact. According to Koza, any state can become a member, as well as Washington D.C. Also, any state can withdraw from the agreement, given the decision to withdraw is made at least six months before the end of the current president’s term, and if not, the state must wait to withdraw from the compact until after a new president has been selected for the next term (Koza, et. al). 

Koza also outlines the election process for states that are members of the compact. Every member state must have a “statewide popular election for the President and Vice President of the United States.” Then, the number of popular votes for the President and Vice President from every state in the United States are totaled to produce the “national popular vote total,” which is the candidate who received the most votes, and will therefore receive the electoral votes from the states that are members of the compact (Koza, et. al).

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is organized, gaining momentum, and becoming more popular amongst legislators. In fact, as of 2012, California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington joined the compact. That is a total of nine states, or 132 electoral votes, which is almost the halfway point for the compact to be valid in an election (Koza, et. al). California entered the compact under Chapter 188. This bill binds California to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact once there is a total of at least 270 electoral votes amongst the members of the compact. The bill outlines the provisions of the compact in the same way Koza did in his book. However, Chapter 188 addresses what would happen if the national popular vote is a tie; the electoral votes would be assigned to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Also, Chapter 188 “becomes invalid if the people or states abolish the Electoral College through a Constitutional amendment” (Patel 649). 

Once enough states join the compact, it will solve many of the problems pertaining to the electoral college. In fact, the compact may even “render the electoral college irrelevant” (Patel 650). Candidates will be less likely to focus on battleground, or swing, states and focus on campaigning at a national level. The outcomes of presidential elections will more accurately represent the votes of the people, rather than some of the people from some states. The “winner-take-all” principle is somewhat still in effect, but only when that “winner” has won a majority of the votes at a national level. The idea of “one person, one vote” is more prevalent under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact because when a person votes, they are contributing to the actual number of votes a candidate receives. If that candidate wins, it is because a majority of the nation voted for them, not because they won over the right combination of states to receive the most electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact also addresses the issue that concerns “faithless electors.” Chapter 188, the bill that enacted the compact in the state of California, allows the presidential slate that wins the national popular vote to choose “loyal electors.”  This makes it certain that the winner of the national popular vote will win the electoral votes for that state, entirely avoiding the problem with faithless electors.

Naturally, as with anything else pertaining to policy, there is opposition to reforming the electoral college. Some people who oppose the idea of reforming the electoral college claim that although it was a compromise, it was implemented for a reason and leads to a “more stable system” (Rudalevige). Critics of reform say that the electoral college provides a “certainty of outcome” in elections, since a tie is highly unlikely (Posner). However, there are plans for dealing with a tie in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that still guarantee an outcome. Some critics also declare that recent election results are the only reason for hopeful reformers’ discontent with the current system (Rudalevige). However, ideas for electoral reform have been around since long before the 2016 election (Feerick). 

Along with opposition to reforming the electoral college, there are obstacles states may face when implementing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but they are not impossible to overcome. The constitutionality of the compact is called into question. Although the Constitution allows for interstate compacts, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact may need Congressional approval (Adler). Adler names the compact “a poor man’s constitutional amendment,” since it bypasses the amendment process and is a sort of loophole in the Constitution. For this reason, Adler claims that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact may result in a Supreme Court hearing following an election to determine its constitutionality. Although these potential obstacles seem rather tough, overcoming them is not out of the question. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is well-researched and not explicitly banned by the Constitution. 

Overall, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact addresses many of the complaints about the current electoral college system. The compact could very well be the solution to the variety of problems pertaining to the electoral college. If the compact is enacted, it would solve the problem of the winner of the popular vote losing the election. It could increase political efficacy and decrease voter apathy by making voters feel like their votes count.  The compact is a way to reform the electoral college without going through the strenuous and lengthy process of amending the Constitution. It has gained momentum and has already been enacted in several states, and is roughly half-way to threshold of 270 electoral votes between its members. As its popularity spreads, more states could consider joining the compact, and its implementation could become a reality. Although there are many ideas in regards the subject, there is no perfect solution for reforming the electoral college. However, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is the best option for updating and changing the way election outcomes are determined in the United States because it would allow for better representation of voters’ choices and it is has a high possibility of being implemented in the near future. 
