Ever feel like your vote doesn't actually count? Honestly, if you live in a "safe" state like California or Alabama, you’re basically watching from the sidelines while people in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin decide the fate of the free world. It's frustrating. Every four years, we see the same map, the same swing state drama, and the same realization that the person who gets the most votes might not actually win. This is why people keep asking how to get rid of electoral college—it feels like a glitch in the democratic matrix.
But here’s the thing. It’s not just a "glitch." It’s baked into the foundation.
To understand why we're still stuck with a system from the 1700s, you have to look at the math and the law. It’s not about one simple law or an executive order from the President. You can’t just sign a paper and make it go away. It’s a mountain. A really big, annoying mountain made of constitutional amendments and state-level power struggles.
The Nuclear Option: A Constitutional Amendment
If you want the "real" way to get rid of it, you’re looking at an amendment. Specifically, changing the 12th Amendment. This is the path most people think of first because it's the most permanent. It's also the hardest.
Think of it this way. To change the Constitution, you need a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. In today's political climate? Getting two-thirds of Congress to agree on lunch is a miracle, let alone a massive shift in how we pick the President. And it doesn't stop there. Once Congress passes it, three-fourths of the states (that’s 38 out of 50) have to ratify it.
Small states hate this idea. Why? Because right now, Wyoming and Vermont have a disproportionate amount of power. In the Electoral College, every state gets at least three votes regardless of how many people live there. If we went to a direct popular vote, candidates might never visit Cheyenne or Burlington again. They'd just spend all their time in NYC, LA, and Houston. Because of that, getting 38 states to agree to lower their own influence is a massive uphill battle.
It’s been tried. A lot. In fact, according to the National Archives, there have been over 700 proposals introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. That’s more than any other subject. In 1969, we actually got close. The Bayh-Celler amendment passed the House with a huge bipartisan majority (338 to 70). It had the support of President Richard Nixon. It seemed like a done deal. Then, it hit the Senate and got filibustered by a group of Southern senators who wanted to preserve their regional voting power. It died there.
The Sneaky Workaround: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Since the amendment process is basically a brick wall, some very smart lawyers and activists found a side door. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
👉 See also: Effingham County Jail Bookings 72 Hours: What Really Happened
This is probably the most realistic answer to how to get rid of electoral college without actually touching the Constitution.
Here is the "loophole" they found: Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says states can appoint their electors in whatever way their legislatures decide. Usually, that means "winner-take-all." If you win 50.1% of Florida, you get all 30 of their electoral votes. But states can change those rules.
The NPVIC is an agreement where states promise to give all their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote, not just the vote in their specific state.
But there is a catch. The compact only kicks in once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes—the number needed to win the presidency.
- Who is in? Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have signed on.
- The Math: These states represent 209 electoral votes.
- The Gap: They still need 61 more votes to make it active.
The states that have joined are mostly "Blue" states—California, New York, Illinois, etc. To get those remaining 61 votes, they need "Purple" or "Red" states to jump on board. That's a tough sell. Critics like Derek Muller, a law professor and election expert, have pointed out that even if the NPVIC reaches 270, it will face immediate, massive lawsuits. Opponents will argue it's an illegal "interstate compact" that requires Congressional approval under the Compact Clause of the Constitution. It would likely end up in the Supreme Court, and who knows how that would go?
Why don't we just split the votes?
Some people ask why we don't just do what Maine and Nebraska do. These two states don't use the winner-take-all system. Instead, they use a "congressional district method." They give two votes to the statewide winner and one vote to the winner of each individual congressional district.
This sounds fair, right? Sorta.
✨ Don't miss: Joseph Stalin Political Party: What Most People Get Wrong
If every state did this, it would definitely change the game. But it wouldn't necessarily "get rid" of the Electoral College; it would just make it more granular. It also introduces a huge risk: gerrymandering. If electoral votes are tied to congressional districts, the party in power in a state legislature could draw the lines to ensure their candidate gets more electoral votes, even if they lose the popular vote in the state.
Imagine if Texas or California split their votes. It would make more parts of the country competitive, but it might just move the "swing state" drama down to the "swing district" level.
The "Middle Way": Proportional Allocation
Another idea that pops up in academic circles is proportional allocation. If a candidate wins 60% of the vote in Ohio, they get 60% of Ohio's electoral votes. Simple.
This would effectively kill the "swing state" monopoly. Candidates would have a reason to campaign in every state because picking up even 5% or 10% of the vote in a "safe" state would actually help their total count.
However, this also has a weird side effect. It makes it much easier for third-party candidates to win electoral votes. If a third party gets 15% of the vote nationwide, they might end up with enough electoral votes to prevent anyone from hitting 270. If nobody hits 270, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state gets exactly one vote. Yeah, you read that right. One vote for California, one vote for Wyoming. It's a mess.
Real Talk: The Political Barriers
Let’s be honest. The reason we haven't changed this is because of partisan math.
Right now, the Republican Party generally benefits from the Electoral College. Since 2000, two Republican presidents (George W. Bush and Donald Trump) won the White House while losing the popular vote. Naturally, Republicans aren't exactly rushing to change a system that helps them win.
🔗 Read more: Typhoon Tip and the Largest Hurricane on Record: Why Size Actually Matters
On the flip side, Democrats are the ones pushing for the popular vote because their voters are concentrated in big cities and high-population states.
But politics changes. In the 1990s, some Republicans were worried that California would stay permanently Red and give Democrats no chance. Things flip. But until one party sees a massive disadvantage in the current system, the political will to pass a Constitutional amendment just isn't there.
What You Can Actually Do
If you're serious about wanting to see a change in how we elect the President, you don't start at the White House. You start at the State House.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is the only active movement with actual momentum. If your state hasn't joined, that is where the battle is happening. It’s not a "federal" issue yet—it’s a state-by-state legislative grind.
Next Steps for Action:
- Check your state's status: Look up the "National Popular Vote" map. If your state is "yellow" (meaning the bill has been introduced but not passed), that’s where your phone calls to state representatives actually matter.
- Focus on local turnout: The Electoral College is only as powerful as the margins in your state. Even in a "safe" state, high turnout affects down-ballot races and legislative priorities that can eventually lead to compact-joining.
- Support Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): Some argue that RCV is a necessary precursor. If we move to a popular vote without RCV, we might end up with a president who wins with 35% of the vote in a crowded field. Pushing for RCV at the local and state level builds the infrastructure for a more direct democracy later.
- Educate on the "District Method" flaws: If your state is considering the Maine/Nebraska model, look closely at the district maps. Ensure that any move away from winner-take-all doesn't just hand more power to the people who draw the maps (gerrymanderers).
Changing the fundamental way we choose our leader is a marathon, not a sprint. It requires shifting the power balance that has existed for over 200 years. It’s messy, it's bureaucratic, and honestly, it's kind of a headache. But understanding that the power currently lies in state legislatures—not just the federal government—is the first step toward any real change.