While there are reasons to support third-party candidates if you align with their views on various issues, even if they win the popular vote, they still have no representation in the Electoral College.
The Electoral College holds a uniquely puzzling role in American history because even the most respected historians and constitutional experts agree that no one knows precisely why the founders established it.
There is some evidence in the Federalist Papers suggesting the founding fathers created the Electoral College as a safeguard. If someone mentally unstable or excessively power-hungry were elected by popular vote, the system would provide one last legal measure to prevent that person from becoming president or vice president.
Although there is no direct evidence supporting this, another popular theory is that even after gaining independence from British colonial rule in the 1780s to establish the world’s first democratic government, the founding fathers still sought to preserve some degree of privilege.
Some historians believe the founders assumed that most political leaders would come from wealthy families. By giving the final say on whether the popular vote winner becomes the next president, they sought to ensure that descendants of wealthy families would retain some control over the country’s leadership for centuries. As mentioned, there is no direct evidence of this, but all the founders were from wealthy families, nearly half owned slaves, and they established constitutional terms counting slaves as three-fifths of a person in population censuses. They also refused to grant citizenship to Native Americans and denied women the right to vote. While it’s unclear if the Electoral College was part of this preservation of privilege, it’s a reasonable guess.
The phrase “Electoral College” does not actually appear in the Constitution, which is a common misconception.
Another explanation is that the idea of a president directly elected by citizens seemed too radical in the 1780s. While they allowed citizens to directly elect city, county, state, and federal offices, they were not ready to extend this to the presidency. This concept had never been implemented anywhere in the world, and the idea may have seemed overwhelming and frightening at the time. From a 21st-century perspective, this may seem preposterous, but we cannot know what it was like to attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Whatever the original purpose, the Electoral College has been controversial for over two centuries.
The phrase “Electoral College” does not actually appear in the Constitution, which is a common misconception. The word “electors” does, but the term “Electoral College” was coined by newspaper writers in the early 1800s.
Over the past 200 years, there have been at least 700 proposals to either modify or eliminate the Electoral College—more proposals than for almost anything else in U.S. history.
The system of directly electing all political offices except the president, while electing electors for the presidency, made little sense in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it still makes little sense today. We may never know what the founding fathers intended with the Electoral College in 1787, but what they created is an enormous boondoggle. The electors are unpaid volunteers, so the process doesn’t waste funding, but it certainly wastes a significant amount of time.
A Boondoggle, Now of 21st Century Proportions
The first waste of time arises in the process of parties selecting the electors themselves. Leaders within the two major parties choose the electors, though the process varies slightly across the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Most credible journalists and political analysts agree that third-party candidates are predicted to receive such small percentages of the popular vote this year that there is no real possibility of anyone other than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump becoming the next president.
If a candidate from outside the two major parties ever seems likely to receive a significant percentage of the popular vote, that party will also need to select electors. We haven’t had a candidate from outside the major parties with a sizable chance of winning since 1992. Should such a situation arise, the third party would be required to follow the same procedures for selecting electors as the Democrats and Republicans.
If we eliminated the Electoral College, the winner of the popular vote would automatically become president, eliminating the need for the electoral vote process.
Electors are selected at party conventions or meetings, sometimes in sessions dedicated specifically to this task. The process can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days, but party leadership usually engages in extensive discussions beforehand. They research the backgrounds of potential electors to ensure they are confident the electors will vote for their party’s candidate if that candidate wins the popular vote. While electors are unpaid volunteers, the role often serves as a stepping stone within party leadership for those looking to advance their political careers.
However, the whole process is largely purposeless. No elector has voted for a candidate they weren’t pledged to since 1976. Occasionally, electors may vote for no one or accidentally reverse the votes for president and vice president, but this has never affected the outcome. For instance, in 2000, one elector abstained from voting, and in 2004, one elector accidentally voted for John Edwards as president instead of vice president. This is just my opinion, but it seems like party leaders could better spend their time on more pressing issues.
The Second Waste of Time: The Electoral Vote Process
After most elections—for town, city, county, or state offices—you typically know the results within 24 hours, unless there’s a recount or a delay in absentee ballots. In presidential elections, you quickly learn the results of the popular vote. But then we wait for the electors to vote for the president. In recent elections—2004, 2008, and 2012—the Electoral College confirmed the popular vote winner. However, that was not the case in 2000.
Electors are often party officials or politicians, and again, I feel their time could be better spent elsewhere. If we eliminated the Electoral College, the winner of the popular vote would automatically become president, eliminating the need for the electoral vote process.
Don’t “Misunderestimate” the Effects of the Electoral College
Most Americans know that when they vote for president, they’re technically voting for electors, not directly for the candidate. The number of electors per state is based on population as determined by the most recent census. This system creates three major problems.
First, a candidate can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. Second, candidates focus on winning electoral votes rather than the popular vote. This leads them to concentrate their efforts on states with the highest number of electoral votes, often ignoring smaller states with fewer electoral votes and paying more attention to key battleground states. Third, this process undermines the democratic principle of equal representation.
There have been four instances in U.S. history when a candidate won the popular vote but lost the presidency: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. The 1824 election saw no clear winner, so the House of Representatives selected John Quincy Adams. In the other three elections, the candidates who won the popular vote lost the electoral vote.
The continued existence of the Electoral College also highlights a deeper problem with how the system distorts the concept of a democratically elected government. Each state’s number of electors equals its number of representatives plus two senators. Washington, D.C. receives three electoral votes, equal to the least populous state. However, U.S. territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands have no voting members in Congress and no electoral votes. As a result, while residents of these territories can vote in the general election, their votes don’t count toward the presidential race.
This situation affects nearly 4 million U.S. citizens, and if it happened in any other country, the American media and global news outlets would quickly label it a civil rights violation. So why do we accept this as normal in the United States?
Why Haven’t We Eliminated the Electoral College?
Eliminating the Electoral College would not be simple. The system is enshrined in the Constitution, and while it contradicts the basic principles of democracy, the Supreme Court cannot declare it unconstitutional. Political leaders can speak out against it, but they can’t directly change the system.
The decision to eliminate the Electoral College would have to come from either the president or Congress. If we ever eliminate it, we will finally have a government directly elected by the people—a true government of the people.