The Big Misconception About the Electoral College


The Electoral College has been very much in the news lately, with many people passionately calling for its eradication or staunchly defending it — usually depending on whether their candidate won or lost. There’s certainly room for debate on this matter, but what’s annoying is how frequently supporters of the institution defend it with the same misconception: the EC, they so often say, was designed to provide “balance” in the electoral process. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Electoral College, in fact, was designed to promote imbalance — i.e., to give some states disproportionate representation in relation to other states. Specifically, it was designed to give more clout to slave-holders and to advance the interests of wealthy landowners in general. And although slavery has subsequently been abolished, the EC still is doing an excellent job of keeping certain sectors of the populace “in their place” and skewing elections in favor of agrarian communities as opposed to urban communities, and in favor of wealthy white men over everyone else.

Another common phrase you hear from defenders of the EC is that it protects the country from being dominated by California and New York. So does it make more sense to have the country dominated by Oklahoma and Nebraska? Because that’s exactly what’s happening. Under the present system, many states that depend mostly on agriculture are valued far more highly than some states that thrive on agriculture plus the tech industry, publishing and media, banking, insurance, science and medicine. As an extreme example, a vote in Wyoming carries more than three and a half times as much weight as a vote in California.

And it’s getting even more lopsided. Twenty years ago, it probably would have been unthinkable for a presidential candidate to win the popular vote by nearly 3 million, yet still lose the electoral vote. But as more and more people move into cities, their votes for president will count less and less. If the trend continues, the president ultimately may be selected by a mere handful of voters. (Although technically there’s no limit to the number of votes a state can acquire, there’s a practical limit because the total must be 538.) Among other things, this means it’s going to be increasingly difficult for a Democrat to get elected — which is precisely why the system will never change: the last thing Republicans want is a level playing field. (See mandering, gerry.)

Supporters of the present system — or of the candidates most likely to benefit from it — also like to tout maps of electoral results like the one reproduced above.  This, they declare, is proof that the country overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump, even though most of the voters rejected him. Makes perfect sense, eh?

Sometimes they’ll get even cuter by breaking down the electoral map into counties, resulting in a sea of red with only a few little islands of blue. Where the hell are all the libruls lurking?

2016 election results map

Such maps are bad models because they depict geographic boundaries rather than demographic density.  What we are perfectly capable of producing, and yet you seldom see, is a 3-D map revealing that “blue” voters tend to live in more densely populated areas, and often even in high-rise buildings.


The two-dimensional maps are meant to reassure us that the right guy won, because he’s representing more of the country. But what they actually do is betray the big flaw of the Electoral College: the president is elected by land mass more than by the citizens who live on it. Donald Trump was not the choice of the people, but he had the overwhelming support of cows, coyotes and cacti.

Defenders of the system are fond of comparing the Electoral College to the World Series. Specifically, they often cite the 1960 match, in which the highly favored New York Yankees outscored the lowly Pittsburgh Pirates 55 to 27, and yet the Pirates still won the series — thanks to the storybook finish of a home run by a mediocre hitter in the bottom of the 9th inning of game 7. We accept and even relish this kind of unexpected drama in sports; so why not in elections?

Well, because even though the presidential election has developed into a spectacle in its own right, with its catty debates and October surprises, it was never designed to be entertainment the way baseball was. It was designed to be a way to pick the leader of the nation; and that objective is better filled by honoring what the people want and need rather than honoring where they live. Furthermore, determining a baseball champion with a series of games rather than a single game helps minimize the element of chance; but breaking up a national election into state elections actually heightens the role of chance. In 2000, for instance, the fluke of a confusing “butterfly ballot” was enough to flip the entire state of Florida — which in turn was enough to flip the entire election.

Consider a hypothetical race between 3 candidates. In state A, candidate Jones receives 5 million votes, Smith receives 4 million and Brown 1 million. In State B, Brown receives 5 million, Smith 4 million and Jones 1 million. The totals for these two states then are: Smith 8 million, Jones 6 million and Brown 6 million.  So Smith, the candidate with the most votes, is awarded no electoral votes at all. Repeating this 25 and a half times, we see that it’s theoretically possible for a candidate to win the popular vote, and yet receive ZERO electoral votes for her trouble.

Does this mean the EC should be abolished? Not necessarily. Because there seems to have been another, more honorable purpose for its existence: to serve as a last line of defense against tyranny. The founders explicitly stated that the institution should be composed of individuals better qualified than the general public for selecting a national leader; and should help ensure that dangerous, unqualified demagogues should not sneak into office just because they happen to hoodwink the voters.

But obviously, the system has failed us big time. The Electoral College has become little more than a rubber stamp; some states even have made it illegal for electors to contradict the choice of the voters in that state.

So perhaps it should be abolished after all. Just don’t hold your breath.


  1. I had no idea that the EC was originally set up to grant slave owners and agricultural areas more clout, since these were the people who were in charge for the economy. And, that fact convinces me that the EC is not only defunct and irrelevant, but that it is nothing less than a blatant way for political bigwigs to grab for power.

    It seems to me that the one man one vote—winner of the popular vote candidate as the winner—would be a more appropriate way to elect our leaders. But, on the other hand, if the EC had simply dismissed Trump as being the kind of corrupt self-centered demagogue who it should never allow to gain the Presidency, that would seem to me a rather unfair and unethical way to usurp power from voters, who, correct or not, duped or not, must occupy a central place of importance in the democratic process.

    Thus, while I think the process should be abandoned, as long as it hasn’t been abandoned up to this point, it would be absurd to give Electors the power to ignore and/or simply cancel out the power of the common man and his voice? And anyway, what guarantee is there that the Electors really do know, in each election, just who is, and who is not, the most worthy candidate for the job?

    Its unfortunately true, that everyday voters are often gullible and easily mislead by unethical politicians. But in a free world, if ordinary people can’t play a primary role in electing our leaders, then how can we call ourselves a Democracy? So, in order for the EC to become a thing of the past, it must be voted on as a referendum question and answered by voters who have had every opportunity to examine the history and the rationale behind the current system.

    I think POP, that if most people could read this article, and could vote to accept the EC on the basis of the facts you examine in it, that the Electoral College would soon be on its way out. Unfortunately, those in power are those who will seek to delay any such changes, primarily to cement their hold on power and, as you point out, none of us should be willing to hold our breaths waiting for that day!

    As a High School student in the 1960s I specifically remember examining arguments about this same issue, but saw no real results that challenged the politics of the times. So using the EC, as well as the need for corporate loopholes to be closed, as well as the continual outcry for the Pentagon to trim its own internal purchasing costs, are issues that are likely to go on and on, without changing in the least!

    Politically, this is really a very stupid way to do business, as well as a dumb way to elect our leaders, but until Congress agrees to quit neutering the ACA, there really is not much that any of us can do to change any of this overnight, as well as for decades yet to come.

    • Perhaps I should have said, “until Congress agrees to quite neutering the election system,” instead of referring to the ACA.

      Congress will also be making a mistake by getting rid of Obamacare, but what does that really have to do with the Electoral College?–except that its use, may make it easier to elect politicians who will then vote to get rid of it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s