Small states at large disadvantage in elections
In less than two weeks Americans across the country will visit the polls to determine the winner of the presidential race. But you will not find either major party candidate campaigning in South Carolina any time soon. This is because the election will be determined by a handful of swing states the candidates need to get to 270 electoral votes. If you live in a state that has already been ceded to either side, then your vote doesn’t count nearly as much as someone’s in a toss-up state. This is why we need to reform presidential voting procedures and start by removing the antiquated Electoral College.
The biggest reason to disband the Electoral College is that the president should be directly elected in a democracy. Today, we vote for electors to cast their own vote for president and vice president when the Electoral College meets. Which individuals pick the electors depends on the state, but they are actually not required to vote for the person their delegates vote for. Electors usually don’t disagree with public, but it shouldn’t even be possible to deviate.
Since the office isn’t directly elected and must first go through states, winning the national popular vote does not actually guarantee you will win the presidency. Multiple presidential candidates, most recently Al Gore in 2000, won the popular vote but still lost the presidency. The national popular vote is a much better indicator of public sentiment than total number of states won, but the Electoral College makes that less important.
The focus on states also has the consequence of magnifying the importance of swing states in comparison to the rest of the states. Ohio and Florida are two examples of swing states getting disproportionate attention. This forces the candidates to pander these states more than others and takes away from a national campaigning strategy. The campaigns are focused on certain areas and their resources flow into those states. The majority of the nation is essentially neglected in favor of a couple of million undecided voters in battleground states. That is not how the leader of the free world should be chosen.
The Electoral College’s defenders would argue it protects small states. But it really only protects swing states and puts the rest of the country at a disadvantage. This system has been very resilient, but it has become completely outdated and impractical. There is no reason to continuing to put the election of the president of the United States in the hands of electors who are not even required to vote as the state actually did. The election of the highest office in the land should be decided by the people.