Since its founding in 1776, the United States has been a pillar of democratic society. However, in the heart of its democracy lies a paradox. Despite being a system designed to give a voice and power to the people, America’s democracy is often constrained by an archaic mechanism that stifles true representation in government, also known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College was a product of 1787’s Constitutional Convention and was created as a compromise to address fears of mob rule and to preserve elite power. While it may have served a purpose in the early days of the U.S., today it stands as a glaring impediment to a fair and just democratic process.

   AP United States Government and Politics Teacher Michele Fournier explained, “The founders who created the Electoral College all the way back in 1787 didn’t necessarily trust the common people to make decisions that were going to benefit everyone.” This mistrust then birthed the Electoral College, which is a system inherently rooted in elitism. Power is concentrated in the hands of a few, ensuring that the wealthy and influential minority are able to guard their interests, often against the greater will of the majority. Over two centuries later, this elitism lingers and the Electoral College has still been used in every presidential election since its creation.

   Throughout the decades of the system being in use, more problems have emerged beyond its inherent hypocrisy, one of which being that representation is skewed heavily in favor of smaller and less diverse states, further solidifying the system as a blemish on democracy as a whole. The imbalance of representation is glaring, where according to the U.S. Census Bureau, “California has over 39 million residents [while] Wyoming has 600,000” (census.gov). Moreover, California has 54 electoral votes whereas Wyoming has three, meaning that on a per-capita basis, a voter in Wyoming has nearly four times more influence in presidential elections than a California voter. Fournier underscored this inequality between states. She said, “We have over 70 times Wyoming’s population but only 18 times as many electoral votes. If they have three we should have 200, not 54.”

   This issue is compounded by the winner-take-all system in most states. Aside from Maine and Nebraska, states allocate all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority, no matter how slim the margin is between candidates. This may seem fair at first glance but once examined closer, this winner-take-all-all system “effectively nullifies the votes of millions who choose the losing candidate in each state” according to the Brookings Institution (brookings.edu). This is a persistent issue in multiple elections, such as the 2016 one. A University of New Hampshire study showed that Hilary Clinton’s significant margins in populous states like New York and California resulted in her obtaining more overall votes but did nothing to counterbalance her narrow losses in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, leading to her losing the election (unh.edu).

   Defenders of the system argue that it protects the interests of smaller states and ensures regional diversity. However, smaller states already enjoy disproportionate representation in the Senate. According to FairVote, “Wyoming’s two senators represent fewer people than a single congressional district in California,” despite them having significantly more power in the course America takes (fairvote.org). The Electoral College further exacerbates this imbalance, privileging smaller states at the expense of larger ones.

   Additionally, the claim that the Electoral College helps promote regional diversity folds under any scrutiny. This is due to the fact that candidates focus exclusively on a select few battleground/swing states, completely ignoring a reliable red or blue state. A 2020 analysis by the National Popular Vote organization found that, “94 percent of campaign events occurred in just 12 battleground states” (nationalpopularvote.com). This leaves the other 38 states almost completely ignored, and by extension, hundreds of millions of voters in these non-competitive states overlooked and underexposed to candidates.

   Finally, the most compelling argument against the Electoral College is its ability to subvert the popular vote, and by extension will of the American people. In five instances, most recently in 2016, the candidate who lost the popular vote won the presidency. This is a direct hindrance to the American people, and democracy, as it illustrates the electoral college’s unique ability to consistently undermine the majority will. The solution to this complex issue is shockingly simple. Abolishing the Electoral College and switching to a national popular vote would make every single vote in the United States equal, which is the most fundamental principle of democracy.