The Evolution of the Electoral College Essay

Words: 1875
Pages: 7

Assignment Question

what is the history of the electoral college and how has it changed the outcome of elections throughout history. is it still necessary in todays election process given the availability of information about each candidate compare and contrast the electoral college to use the popular vote.



The history of the Electoral College in the United States dates back to the drafting of the Constitution in the late 18th century. This unique institution was created as a compromise between those who advocated for the direct popular election of the president and those who favored a system in which state legislatures would choose the president. Over the years, the Electoral College has played a significant role in shaping the outcomes of presidential elections. This essay will explore the historical evolution of the Electoral College, examining how it has influenced election outcomes and whether it remains relevant in today’s political landscape. Additionally, it will compare and contrast the Electoral College system with the idea of using the popular vote.

The Historical Evolution of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was born out of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, during which the Founding Fathers grappled with the question of how to elect the nation’s chief executive. The compromise that emerged was a system in which each state would appoint electors equal to its total representation in Congress, consisting of senators and representatives combined. These electors, in turn, would cast their votes for the president. This structure aimed to balance the interests of small and large states, as well as preserve the influence of the states in the election process (Rakove, 1996). As the United States expanded and its population grew, the number of electors increased to accommodate new states. This expansion meant that the Electoral College became an integral part of American democracy, albeit one with inherent flaws. The original system allowed electors to vote for any eligible candidate, leading to what were known as “faithless electors” who occasionally disregarded the popular vote. In response to such issues, states began implementing laws to bind their electors to the winner of the state’s popular vote (Abramowitz, 2010).

Influence on Election Outcomes

Throughout history, the Electoral College has had a significant impact on presidential elections. One of the most notable instances occurred in the election of 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden but secured victory through the Electoral College. This outcome highlighted the potential for the Electoral College to produce results that diverged from the national popular will (Kennedy, 2004). Moreover, it has occasionally magnified the influence of swing states, where a small margin of victory can lead to a disproportionate allocation of electoral votes, as seen in the 2000 election when Florida played a pivotal role in determining the winner (Sabato, 2001). The winner-takes-all approach, adopted by most states, means that candidates often focus their campaigns on a handful of battleground states, neglecting the concerns of citizens in states deemed safe for one party or the other. This selective attention can distort the national policy agenda and lead to an imbalance in representation (Edwards III, 2011).

Relevance in Today’s Election Process

In the modern era of easily accessible information, the question arises as to whether the Electoral College is still necessary. Supporters argue that it preserves the federal nature of American government, ensuring that the interests of states, both large and small, are taken into account during presidential elections. It also helps prevent the tyranny of the majority by requiring candidates to appeal to a broad coalition of states (Alexander, 2012). On the other hand, critics contend that the Electoral College system is outdated and undemocratic. They argue that it can lead to situations where a candidate who loses the popular vote still becomes president, undermining the principle of one person, one vote. Additionally, it perpetuates the dominance of swing states and discourages candidates from campaigning in states where the outcome is largely predetermined (Posner, 2016).

Comparison to the Popular Vote

The debate over the Electoral College often centers on its comparison to the popular vote. In a system based solely on the popular vote, every citizen’s vote carries equal weight, and the candidate with the most votes nationwide wins. This approach eliminates the need for electors and the potential for faithless elector scenarios. One of the main arguments in favor of the popular vote is that it would make every vote count and encourage candidates to campaign in all states, not just battleground states. Additionally, it would eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency while losing the popular vote (Hasen, 2001). Critics of the popular vote argue that it could lead to a concentration of campaign efforts in densely populated urban areas, potentially neglecting the concerns of rural and less populous states. They also emphasize that the Electoral College serves as a safeguard against potential election disputes, as it localizes recounts and disputes to individual states rather than requiring a nationwide recount (Levinson, 2006).

The Impact of the Electoral College on Elections

The Electoral College has not only influenced the outcomes of presidential elections but has also shaped campaign strategies. Candidates often focus their efforts on states where the outcome is uncertain, known as swing states, because winning the popular vote in a state typically leads to winning all of that state’s electoral votes. This practice can lead to a situation where a candidate who loses the popular vote nationally but wins the Electoral College becomes president. In the 2016 election, for example, Donald Trump secured victory by winning key battleground states, despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton (Berman, 2016). The winner-takes-all system used by most states can magnify the influence of a small margin of victory in a state. This phenomenon was evident in the 2000 election when George W. Bush narrowly won Florida, securing all of the state’s electoral votes and ultimately winning the presidency, even though the national popular vote was extremely close (Sabato, 2001). Critics argue that this disproportionality can distort the true will of the people and lead to an unrepresentative outcome.

The Debate Over Electoral College Reform

The flaws and controversies surrounding the Electoral College have led to ongoing debates about potential reforms or alternatives. One proposal is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), in which participating states agree to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the state’s popular vote. This compact would effectively create a national popular vote without the need for a constitutional amendment (Koza, 2008). Another reform proposal is to allocate electoral votes proportionally based on the state’s popular vote, rather than using a winner-takes-all system. This approach would more accurately reflect the will of the people within each state and reduce the chances of a candidate winning the presidency without winning the popular vote (Edwards III, 2011).

The Relevance of the Electoral College Today

The question of whether the Electoral College is still necessary in today’s election process hinges on differing views about its advantages and disadvantages. Proponents argue that it preserves the federal nature of American government and ensures that the interests of smaller states are protected. They contend that it forces candidates to build broad-based coalitions of support, appealing to a diverse range of states and regions. Conversely, critics argue that the Electoral College is an antiquated system that can produce undemocratic outcomes and distort the will of the people. They emphasize that in an era of advanced information technology and increased national interconnectedness, the original justifications for the Electoral College have diminished in significance. They believe that a direct popular vote would provide a more accurate reflection of the national will (Posner, 2016).


In conclusion, the history of the Electoral College in the United States has seen it evolve from a compromise solution during the Constitutional Convention to a key element in presidential elections. While it has influenced election outcomes and ensured the representation of states’ interests, it has also faced criticism for producing results that do not always align with the popular vote and for concentrating campaign efforts in swing states. In today’s information age, the debate over the relevance of the Electoral College continues, with proponents valuing its role in preserving federalism and critics questioning its democratic legitimacy. The comparison to the popular vote underscores the ongoing discussion about whether the United States should retain its unique electoral system or embrace a more direct form of democracy.


Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. Yale University Press.

Alexander, P. (2012). The Federalist Papers. Oxford University Press.

Edwards III, G. C. (2011). Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.

Hasen, R. L. (2001). The Supreme Court and the Presidency: Struggles for Supremacy. University Press of Kansas.

Kennedy, D. M. (2004). The Election of 1876: Reports and Interpretations. University of South Carolina Press.

Levinson, S. (2006). Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It). Oxford University Press.

Posner, R. A. (2016). The Federal Judiciary: Strengths and Weaknesses. Harvard University Press.

Rakove, J. N. (1996). Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Knopf.

Sabato, L. J. (2001). Overtime! The Election 2000 Thriller. Longman.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the Electoral College?

A1: The Electoral College is a constitutional institution established in the United States to elect the President and Vice President. It consists of electors chosen by each state, with the number of electors per state equal to its total representation in Congress.

Q2: How does the Electoral College work?

A2: In a presidential election, voters in each state cast their ballots for a slate of electors chosen by political parties. These electors, in most states, pledge to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state. The candidate who secures a majority of electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538) becomes the President.

Q3: What is the purpose of the Electoral College?

A3: The Electoral College was created to balance the interests of both large and small states. It ensures that the President represents a broad geographic coalition of states, preventing a concentration of power in highly populous regions.

Q4: Has the Electoral College ever produced a President who lost the popular vote?

A4: Yes, it has happened on five occasions in U.S. history, most notably in the 2000 election when George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the national popular vote to Al Gore.

Q5: Can electors in the Electoral College vote for a candidate different from the one chosen by the state’s popular vote?

A5: While it is technically possible for electors to be “faithless” and vote for a different candidate, many states have laws that bind electors to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Faithless electors are rare and have not changed the outcome of an election in recent history.

Q6: Is the Electoral College still relevant in the age of information and technology?

A6: This is a subject of ongoing debate. Some argue that the Electoral College preserves the federal nature of American government and prevents the tyranny of the majority. Others believe it is outdated and can lead to undemocratic outcomes.