Votes to Win

Most US states use a method called winner-take-all plurality, where the candidate who gets the most votes (even without a majority) wins all electoral votes (p. 10). In Michigan, 47.6% of voters supported Donald Trump, while 47.3% supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections. However, Trump got all 16 votes. This method simplifies outcomes and carries a strong presumption in favour of the decision taken in most cases. So, why are millions of votes considered “wasted” in each of the states? In effect, only the candidate with the most votes would be represented in the Electoral College. While this method affords clarity and finality, it may distort the principle of “one person, one vote” and depress turnout in non-competitive states (p. 10). So, I do not think that it is the best way to decide elections, because it exaggerates the influence of some states and diminishes that of others, especially in closely contested or reliably partisan states.

Though many people in the US want to change or abolish the Electoral College, there are obstacles. Amending the Constitution is a challenging process, as it requires the approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. The current arrangement ensures that small and less populous states have at least three electoral votes. This gives their residents more per capita clout than larger states like California. These states do not have a political incentive for change that would decrease their power. Altering​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ the system of a systematic approach may have harmful and unexpected effects, especially in the case of the conflict between federal and state powers (11). Reforms enjoy some level of popular support; however, they are being delayed due to legal and political complications.

One of the main issues that the Electoral College should address is that of changing the way the votes are counted rather than getting rid of it entirely. The best solution would be to implement a congressional district electoral vote system, such as the ones in Maine and Nebraska, where each congressional district allocates its electoral votes, and the candidate with the statewide majority gets the remaining two (p. 12). In this way, the states will be able to more accurately reflect voters' preferences while at the same time preserving the federal balance set out in the Constitution. It might also attract candidates to hold their campaigns in states that are usually non-competitive, and as a result, politically, no place would be left without importance. <br>This idea keeps the structure of the Electoral College intact but is more just and more in line with the popular ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌will.