As the United States nears the final days of a hard-fought presidential race, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump are vying to win the hearts—and votes—of millions of Americans. But despite the fervor and enthusiasm surrounding the campaigns, the result will ultimately hinge on a system that remains controversial: the Electoral College.
In America’s indirect democracy, winning the popular vote doesn’t necessarily mean a candidate will claim the presidency. This unique election system, established as a compromise in the Constitution, has been the decisive factor in five elections where the candidate with the most votes didn’t secure the presidency, most recently in 2016. As Election Day approaches, the Electoral College is once again in the spotlight, scrutinized for the ways it amplifies, diminishes, or even distorts voter sentiment.
The Electoral College, established in 1787, was initially seen as a middle ground between Congress electing the president and a direct popular vote. Under this system, Americans don’t directly vote for a presidential candidate. Instead, they vote for electors—people designated to represent each state in a vote for the president. This temporary body of 538 electors, based on congressional representation, casts the deciding votes. To win the presidency, a candidate must secure a majority of at least 270 electoral votes.
Electors per state correlate with each state’s congressional delegation: two senators and a number of representatives based on population. For Electoral College purposes, Washington, D.C., is treated like a state with three electoral votes, the minimum any state receives regardless of population. This approach leads to the paradox where a single electoral vote can represent vastly different numbers of people across states.
Disparities in Electoral Representation
For larger states, the population-to-elector ratio means millions of residents have minimal relative influence compared to residents of smaller states. For example, California, the most populous state, has 54 electoral votes representing 39.5 million people—translating to around 730,000 people per elector. Wyoming, meanwhile, has three electors for a population of just over 576,000, meaning each of its electors represents around 192,000 people. This discrepancy raises questions about the fairness of the Electoral College, as voters in some states have more sway than those in others.
Bruce Wolpe, a senior fellow at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre, observes that many Americans have grown aware of how “undemocratic” the Electoral College can feel. “Those living in historically safe states like Alabama,” he notes, “can often feel like their vote doesn’t matter, particularly when they don’t support the party that usually wins.” The sense that votes are undervalued has fostered cynicism in some quarters, with critics arguing that the system undermines democracy’s fundamental principle: equal representation.
Most states and the District of Columbia use a winner-takes-all system, where the candidate with the most votes in the state claims all of its electoral votes. For instance, if Trump wins Florida’s popular vote, even by a narrow margin, he receives all 30 of Florida’s electoral votes, leaving none for Harris, even if she only trails him by a fraction of a percent.
Two exceptions to the winner-takes-all model, Maine and Nebraska, use a proportional allocation approach, awarding electoral votes based on the statewide popular vote as well as by congressional district. This method allows for the possibility of split electoral votes, a scenario that can introduce a measure of diversity in representation from these states. For example, if Harris wins Maine’s statewide popular vote and one congressional district, she receives three of Maine’s electoral votes, with the remaining vote potentially going to Trump if he secures the majority in the other district. This nuanced approach, however, is rare and unlikely to spread widely.
Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote: A Divergence in Democracy
The potential disconnect between the national popular vote and the Electoral College has led to contentious results in U.S. history. In five elections, candidates who won the popular vote ultimately lost the Electoral College. Most recently, in 2016, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received 48.2 percent of the national vote but lost the presidency to Trump, who captured only 46.1 percent of the popular vote yet secured a decisive 304 electoral votes. This disparity arose primarily due to Trump’s victories in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
This phenomenon has led some experts to argue that the Electoral College runs counter to the principles of democratic representation. With the growing polarization in American politics, residents of “safe” states often feel disenfranchised, while candidates invest the bulk of their campaign efforts and resources in just a few critical swing states. This emphasis on competitive states, rather than broad national appeal, has raised concerns over whether the Electoral College truly reflects the people’s will.
Though rare, “faithless electors” have historically cast unexpected votes, defying their state’s popular vote. In 2016, for instance, seven electors voted contrary to the popular vote in their states. Three electors even cast votes for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was not a candidate in that election. The 2016 election highlighted this vulnerability in the system, though most states have since enacted laws that penalize faithless electors.
While the influence of faithless electors has not changed the outcome of any presidential election thus far, their existence underscores a fragile element within the Electoral College process. Many states, however, have reinforced laws to bind electors to the results of their states’ popular vote, reducing the likelihood of these unexpected votes impacting future elections.
Once each state certifies its popular vote winner, the selected electors gather to cast their official votes. This process culminates on January 6, when a joint session of Congress meets to count the votes and formally declare the election’s winner. However, this procedure became fraught with controversy following the 2020 election.
After President Joe Biden won both the national popular vote and the Electoral College, Trump and his supporters disputed the results, alleging widespread voter fraud. Their claims led to the violent January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, where a mob attempted to prevent Congress from certifying the election. While a congressional panel later found that these actions were influenced by false claims of election fraud, the incident underscored the vulnerabilities in the certification process.
In response, Congress passed a 2022 amendment to clarify the electoral certification process. This amendment redefined the role of electors and established more stringent rules to prevent future efforts to disrupt election certification. However, with the 2024 election on the horizon, the robustness of these reforms remains uncertain, especially given the heightened tensions surrounding the current race.
The Enduring Debate: Is the Electoral College Sustainable?
Criticism of the Electoral College has intensified over recent years, with many Americans and political scholars questioning its relevance in a modern democracy. Opponents argue that it contradicts the principle of one person, one vote by giving disproportionate weight to less populous states. Proposals to reform or even abolish the Electoral College have gained traction, though altering or eliminating it would require a constitutional amendment—a lengthy and challenging process.
Supporters of the Electoral College, however, argue that it balances power between densely populated and rural states, preventing a handful of urban areas from dominating presidential elections. They assert that the system encourages candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters across the country, rather than focusing exclusively on large metropolitan regions. This balance, they argue, preserves a federalist structure within the U.S. political system, ensuring that all states have a voice in the national leadership.
With the Electoral College casting a long shadow over the current election, the stakes are high for both Harris and Trump as they pursue the coveted 270-vote threshold. Their campaigns are heavily concentrated on swing states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia, where small shifts in public opinion could prove decisive. At the same time, recent shifts in voter sentiment, concerns about election security, and questions regarding the integrity of the process loom large, adding uncertainty to an already contentious race.
Regardless of who claims the popular vote, the ultimate decision lies in the hands of the Electoral College, bringing into focus once again the enduring debate over its role in American democracy. As Americans prepare to cast their votes, the nation—and the world—watches, waiting to see how this unique electoral system will shape the next chapter of U.S. leadership.
