Let’s be real. If you sat down today to design a brand-new democracy from scratch, you would never, ever come up with the Electoral College. It feels like an aging piece of software—clunky, full of bugs, and written in a language nobody speaks anymore. Most of us grew up just accepting it as "the way it is," but when a candidate wins the most votes from actual human beings and still loses the White House, it feels like the math is broken. It has happened five times in our history. Twice in the last 24 years. That isn’t a statistical fluke; it’s a systemic design feature that many believe has outlived its purpose.
The core of the debate over why should we abolish the electoral college usually boils down to one simple idea: one person, one vote. Right now, that’s just not how it works. If you’re a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, your vote for president basically vanishes into a black hole the second you cast it. You might as well be shouting into a vacuum. Because of the winner-take-all system used by 48 states, those millions of votes don't contribute to the final tally in any meaningful way. It's frustrating. It's weird. And honestly, it’s making a lot of people check out of the process entirely.
The Ghost of 1787 and Why It’s Still Haunting Us
The Founding Fathers weren't exactly trying to create a perfect "power to the people" system. They were terrified of what they called "mob rule." Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68 that the Electoral College was supposed to be a literal barrier—a group of "refined" men who would act as a filter to make sure the public didn't elect a populist demagogue or someone under foreign influence.
Guess what? That filter doesn't exist anymore.
Modern electors are almost always party loyalists who vote exactly how they’re told. The "deliberative body" Hamilton envisioned is a ghost. We kept the clunky machinery but threw away the operators. We're left with a system that was also deeply entangled with the Three-Fifths Compromise. James Madison admitted during the Constitutional Convention that a direct popular vote would disadvantage the South because of its large enslaved population who couldn't vote. By using the Electoral College, the South got to count those enslaved people toward their number of electors, boosting their power without giving those people a single right. It’s a heavy, dark history that we don't talk about enough when we discuss why the system exists.
The "Swing State" Problem is Ruining Strategy
If you live in Ohio, Florida (well, maybe not Florida anymore), Pennsylvania, or Arizona, you’ve seen the ads. They’re everywhere. Your phone doesn't stop buzzing. Candidates live in your diners. But if you live in New York, Idaho, or Alabama? You're invisible.
🔗 Read more: The Night the Mountain Fell: What Really Happened During the Big Thompson Flood 1976
Because of the way the system is set up, candidates ignore about 40 states. They just do.
In the 2020 election, a staggering 94% of all general election campaign events happened in just 12 states. Two-thirds were in only six states. That’s not a national election. It’s a regional scrap. When we ask why should we abolish the electoral college, we’re really asking why the concerns of a dairy farmer in Wisconsin should matter more than a teacher in Utah or a tech worker in Washington. The current setup forces candidates to pander to a very specific, narrow set of "swing" voters, while the rest of the country is treated like a foregone conclusion. It’s a recipe for resentment.
What About the Small States?
The most common argument for keeping things as they are is that it protects small states like Wyoming or Vermont. The idea is that without the Electoral College, candidates would just spend all their time in NYC, LA, and Chicago.
But that’s a myth.
First off, the math doesn't even work. The top ten largest cities in America combined make up less than 10% of the total population. You can't win a national election just by visiting big cities. Secondly, under the current system, small states are already ignored. When was the last time a presidential candidate held a massive rally in Cheyenne or Montpelier? They don't. They go where the electoral votes are "in play." Right now, a small state that isn't a swing state has zero leverage. A direct popular vote would actually make every single person in a small state a target for outreach, because every single vote would finally add to a national pile.
💡 You might also like: The Natascha Kampusch Case: What Really Happened in the Girl in the Cellar True Story
The "Faithless Elector" Risk
Most people think when they check the box for a candidate, they are voting for that person. You’re actually voting for a slate of anonymous electors. In many states, these electors aren't even legally bound to vote for the person they promised to support.
Remember 2016? We had seven "faithless electors." It was the highest number in history. While it didn't change the outcome, it showed just how fragile the system is. In a razor-thin election, a couple of people changing their minds behind closed doors could theoretically flip the presidency against the will of the voters. That’s not a "stable democracy." That’s a thriller movie plot waiting to happen.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)
Since a Constitutional Amendment is incredibly hard to pass—requiring a two-thirds vote in Congress and three-fourths of the states—people are getting creative. Enter the NPVIC. This is basically a "workaround."
States that join the compact agree to give all their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote, regardless of who won in their specific state. But—and this is the catch—the agreement only kicks in once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes. As of 2024, they’re at 209. They need 61 more. It’s a clever, state-level rebellion against a federal system that feels broken. It’s also legal under the Constitution because Article II gives states the power to choose how they appoint their electors.
Why This Matters for 2026 and Beyond
We are living in an era of hyper-polarization. When the person in the Oval Office didn't win the popular vote, a huge chunk of the country starts off feeling like the government is illegitimate. It erodes trust. Trust is the only thing keeping the whole experiment together.
📖 Related: The Lawrence Mancuso Brighton NY Tragedy: What Really Happened
By shifting to a direct vote, we do a few things instantly:
- Increase Turnout: If you’re a blue voter in a red state, your vote finally counts. You have a reason to show up.
- Broaden the Map: Candidates have to talk to everyone, everywhere.
- End the "Spoiler" Fear: While not a total fix, it makes third-party candidates less of a "risk" to the overall math.
- Simplicity: The person with the most votes wins. You know, like every other election we have for governor, mayor, or dogcatcher.
Taking Action on Reform
If the current system feels like it’s failing the "democracy test," there are actual ways to engage beyond just complaining on the internet. Reform isn't a pipe dream, but it does require a specific kind of pressure.
Track the NPVIC in your state. Look up the National Popular Vote movement. If your state hasn't signed on yet, that is the most direct path to bypassing the Electoral College without needing a Constitutional Amendment. Write to your state representatives—not your Congresspeople in D.C., but the folks in your state capital. They are the ones who actually hold the power to change how electors are assigned.
Support transparency in the primary process. The Electoral College is the final boss, but the way we pick candidates also limits our choices. Look into Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as a complementary reform. It’s being used in Maine and Alaska and helps ensure that the eventual winner has broad support, which pairs perfectly with the goal of a national popular vote.
Educate your circle without the partisan heat. The Electoral College isn't inherently "pro-Republican" or "pro-Democrat." In the early 2000s, it almost handed the presidency to John Kerry despite George W. Bush winning the popular vote. It’s a "pro-incumbency" and "pro-swing state" system. Framing it as a matter of fairness for all voters, regardless of party, is how you actually move the needle on public opinion.
The bottom line? We are using an 18th-century solution for 21st-century problems. It’s time to stop letting geography dictate the value of a citizen's voice.