Josh Devos
‘The Electoral College should be replaced by a National Popular Vote.’ Discuss (45):
It can be argued that smaller states are given too much power under the Electoral College as every state
automatically holds 3 Electoral College votes as a minimum. Analysis has shown that under the current
system, 1 Wyoming vote holds the same weight as around 4 Californian votes. This is because Wyoming
receives 1 elector per 190,000 whereas California gets 1 elector for around 678,000 voters. Therefore giving
smaller states, larger voting power. This is especially present in the event of a tiebreak. This is when no
majority is reached after the elections and the House decides the President and the Senate determine the
Vice-President. Small state are over-represented because in the House, all states have to put forward 1
vote, meaning that the State of California which has 55 ECV (electoral college votes) has the same weighted
vote as Delaware which has 3 ECV. This is a reason as to why we should replace the Electoral College with
the popular vote as it gives fair, equal power to each citizen.
It can also be said that the Electoral College is undemocratic in a sense because it gives far too much
influence to the swing states. Smaller states are not really considered important because elections are won
and lost in specific swing states. This is because the candidates do not need to campaign in safe states as
the result is almost always guaranteed. For example, a Democratic presidential candidate would not bother
campaigning in Wyoming as it has been a safe Republican seat for years. There is evidence that swing states
have more influence and this can be seen in figures regarding time and money. Obama spent around
$314.7million dollars on election advertising in the 2012 campaign between April 11 th and Election Day and
around 99.6% of that was spent in just 10 states (FairVote analysis). Further evidence shows that 57% of
candidate visits in 2008 were in just 4 states. The popular vote system would be seen as a more appropriate
solution as it requires the candidate to campaign everywhere, as every vote holds the same amount of
influence, producing more democratic results.
Another reason why the Electoral College should be replaced is because under this system, the winner of
the popular vote can actually lose the election. This means that the candidate who received the most votes
overall actually lost the election, due to Electoral College votes in winner-takes-all states. Under the
Electoral College, 48 states adopt a winner-takes-all style, whereby the winner of the popular vote in that
state wins all the Electoral College votes that the state has to offer. For example, Iowa has 6 ECV and the
winner of the popular vote there will take all 6 ECV and the loser receives none. This can be seen as
undemocratic as it has happened 3 times whereby the President who receives a majority of the popular
vote (clearest mandate) loses to the candidate who receives the most ECV. The most notable example of
this happened in 2000, during the election between Al Gore and George W. Bush when Gore won the
popular vote but Bush won the ECV, making him President. Replacing the Electoral College with the popular
vote would ensure that the President always holds the most legitimate mandate due to receiving the most
votes nationwide.
Furthermore, replacing the Electoral College would give 3rd parties and independents, a better chance at
winning the presidency. The Electoral College ensures a 2 party system as it requires concentration of
support in certain states due to the winner-takes-all system. A popular vote would allow independent
candidates to gain effective support as each vote was equally weighted. In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an
independent candidate and held quite a lot of support. He was even invited to speak in a presidential
debate. However, despite winning 18% of the popular vote, he won 0 ECV. Meaning that although nearly
1/5th of the electorate voted for him, he did not win any states due to widespread support throughout the
country, rather than having heavily concentrated support in 1 or 2 states. Many 3rd party candidates are
also named as ‘spoilers’ and this is because if the candidate was more liberal than a Democratic candidate,
they may draw support from the Democrats, leading to a win for the Republicans as the Democratic
‘The Electoral College should be replaced by a National Popular Vote.’ Discuss (45):
It can be argued that smaller states are given too much power under the Electoral College as every state
automatically holds 3 Electoral College votes as a minimum. Analysis has shown that under the current
system, 1 Wyoming vote holds the same weight as around 4 Californian votes. This is because Wyoming
receives 1 elector per 190,000 whereas California gets 1 elector for around 678,000 voters. Therefore giving
smaller states, larger voting power. This is especially present in the event of a tiebreak. This is when no
majority is reached after the elections and the House decides the President and the Senate determine the
Vice-President. Small state are over-represented because in the House, all states have to put forward 1
vote, meaning that the State of California which has 55 ECV (electoral college votes) has the same weighted
vote as Delaware which has 3 ECV. This is a reason as to why we should replace the Electoral College with
the popular vote as it gives fair, equal power to each citizen.
It can also be said that the Electoral College is undemocratic in a sense because it gives far too much
influence to the swing states. Smaller states are not really considered important because elections are won
and lost in specific swing states. This is because the candidates do not need to campaign in safe states as
the result is almost always guaranteed. For example, a Democratic presidential candidate would not bother
campaigning in Wyoming as it has been a safe Republican seat for years. There is evidence that swing states
have more influence and this can be seen in figures regarding time and money. Obama spent around
$314.7million dollars on election advertising in the 2012 campaign between April 11 th and Election Day and
around 99.6% of that was spent in just 10 states (FairVote analysis). Further evidence shows that 57% of
candidate visits in 2008 were in just 4 states. The popular vote system would be seen as a more appropriate
solution as it requires the candidate to campaign everywhere, as every vote holds the same amount of
influence, producing more democratic results.
Another reason why the Electoral College should be replaced is because under this system, the winner of
the popular vote can actually lose the election. This means that the candidate who received the most votes
overall actually lost the election, due to Electoral College votes in winner-takes-all states. Under the
Electoral College, 48 states adopt a winner-takes-all style, whereby the winner of the popular vote in that
state wins all the Electoral College votes that the state has to offer. For example, Iowa has 6 ECV and the
winner of the popular vote there will take all 6 ECV and the loser receives none. This can be seen as
undemocratic as it has happened 3 times whereby the President who receives a majority of the popular
vote (clearest mandate) loses to the candidate who receives the most ECV. The most notable example of
this happened in 2000, during the election between Al Gore and George W. Bush when Gore won the
popular vote but Bush won the ECV, making him President. Replacing the Electoral College with the popular
vote would ensure that the President always holds the most legitimate mandate due to receiving the most
votes nationwide.
Furthermore, replacing the Electoral College would give 3rd parties and independents, a better chance at
winning the presidency. The Electoral College ensures a 2 party system as it requires concentration of
support in certain states due to the winner-takes-all system. A popular vote would allow independent
candidates to gain effective support as each vote was equally weighted. In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an
independent candidate and held quite a lot of support. He was even invited to speak in a presidential
debate. However, despite winning 18% of the popular vote, he won 0 ECV. Meaning that although nearly
1/5th of the electorate voted for him, he did not win any states due to widespread support throughout the
country, rather than having heavily concentrated support in 1 or 2 states. Many 3rd party candidates are
also named as ‘spoilers’ and this is because if the candidate was more liberal than a Democratic candidate,
they may draw support from the Democrats, leading to a win for the Republicans as the Democratic
