Revisiting the Electoral College: A Fairer Way Forward

The United States' Electoral College system has been a contentious topic for decades, with many arguing that it undermines the principles of a democratic society. The current 'winner takes all' system often leaves many voters feeling their preferences are dismissed. This article explores the flaws in the current system, the National Popular Vote Compact, and proposes an alternative solution that could restore inclusiveness and representation in our presidential elections.

The Flaws in the Current System

Standard arguments in favor of the Electoral College often focus on national representation and balancing the interests of smaller and larger states. However, these arguments can mask deeper issues:

Many see it as a relic of an 18th-century monarchy, where only a select group of individuals are directly represented in the election process, leading to dissatisfaction among the broader electorate. The 'winner takes all' system does not truly reflect the will of the majority, as illustrated by instances where no candidate secures an electoral majority. Lesser-evil voting, where voters choose the 'lesser' of two candidates rather than the one who best aligns with their values, is exploited by major parties. The focus on key battleground states leads to a disregard for the voices of voters in 'fly over' states.

The National Popular Vote Compact: A Misstep?

The National Popular Vote Compact aims to award all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. While it seems like a straightforward solution, it has several drawbacks:

It undermines state sovereignty by prioritizing a national result over individual state preferences. It benefits only the largest and most densely populated areas, potentially ignoring the needs and concerns of smaller states and rural areas. It does not address the broader issues with the 'winner takes all' system, such as lesser-evil voting and the neglect of non-battleground states.

A Proportional Alternative

An alternative to the current system is a proportional allocation of electors, where electors are awarded based on the percentage of votes received. This approach would:

Ensure a more inclusive process by representing the diverse preferences of voters. Prevent the exploitation of lesser-evil voting, as candidates would need to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters to secure electoral votes. Reduce the significance of battleground states, thereby giving all voters a fair chance to influence the outcome.

Implementation Scenario

Using the 2016 election as a reference, a proportional system might result in:

Electoral Votes:
Donald Trump: 224
Hillary Clinton: 200
Gary Johnson: 68
Jill Stein: 46

With this system, the candidates would face a more competitive race, necessitating a broad appeal that considers voter issues rather than just big moneyed interests. The distribution of electoral votes would be significantly different, with no single state having a decisive advantage. Even smaller states would hold vital sway, ensuring a more representative outcome.

The Way Forward

Implementing a proportional electoral system would address many of the flaws in our current system. It would create a more inclusive and representative democracy, where all voters have a meaningful say in the electoral process. Such a change would require a concerted effort from states to adopt this approach, but the benefits to our democracy are extensive and well worth the effort.