After two presidents in the past twenty years were elected without a majority of the popular vote, there have been renewed cries to eliminate the electoral college. That begs the question what is the electoral college, is it working as it should, and should it be doing what it is doing.
What is the electoral college, you ask? As stated in Article II, section I, clause II of the US Constitution, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." The electoral college is simply the body of electors that are selected to actually vote for president. How are the electors chosen? That is what the presidential election is for. People vote, state by state, to decide which electors will be chosen or what their instructions will be. The popular vote doesn't matter, although the electoral college and the popular vote should resemble each other. In fact, they typically do, but when the election is tight, the popular vote and the electoral college can be different. The popular vote difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 was only 0.5%, and between Clinton and Trump in 2012, it was 2.1%. In 1876, it was only 3% between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. Those are not huge differences. In fact, it has only happened five times that a candidate that lost the popular vote won the Presidential election over the course of 57 elections for president. Split elections seem to be outliers. Then why have two of the past elections in twenty years been split? The only times it has happened were 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.
So is the electoral college working as it should? If a split election is a rare thing, why have two happened in the past twenty years? First, you need to look at the purpose of the electoral college. Many have criticized it as unfair, reducing the voice of the populous states while amplifying the voices of the less populous ones. This criticism is right, but this is a design feature, not a bug. The electoral college was born of an awkward compromise between the thirteen colonies, just as the bicameral legislature with representatives proportioned by population in the House but equally in the Senate was. Both compromises were born of the same fears, that little Rhode Island would have its voice silenced by mighty Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, or the South would be able to constantly outvote the North. Likewise, there was a fear of "tyranny of the majority," that a slim majority could enforce its will despite the opposition of a significant minority as had happened to England during the Civil War when a Rump Parliament ran roughshod before Cromwell took over. Likewise, rural areas feared domination by cities. So the electoral college was introduced, to spread the vote regionally, so the will of each state is heard. With the number of electors set by the number of congressmen, the voices of the smaller states would still matter. By adjusting the number of congressmen every ten years, the issue of rotten boroughs that was already becoming an issue in England in the 18th century was avoided when the Constitution was drafted. A similar thing is happening, as happened in 1876 and 1888. By a fluke of demographics, certain states are more muffled than usual. Hillary Clinton won by a significant margin in California but needed more votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan to be elected president.
So, if the electoral college is working as it should, ensuring the president has a broad consensus, is it worth keeping? What are the alternatives? One popular alternative is to sideline the electoral college by assigning all electors based on the national vote, not the state one. This would sideline the electoral college and make the election based on the national popular vote. That sounds great, but then only the population centers like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston would really matter. South Dakota and Alaska could be ignored entirely. What about splitting a states' electors proportionally based on the vote as Nebraska and Maine? As discussed in this Medium article, instead of having the states decide, it would be determined by how faithful the electors are, and faithless electors do happen. The electoral college is a compromise, and like many compromises, it leaves everyone a bit unsatisfied and thinking the deal is unfair.
