Today, we’re continuing our deep dive into the Electoral College. On Day 90, we covered its history, how it was born out of compromise, and how it evolved. If you missed that episode, I highly recommend returning to check it out.

Today, we focus on the modern Electoral College—how it operates today, its arguments for and against it, and its challenges in our current political landscape. We’ll also touch on some notable historical examples and discuss the future of this controversial institution.

How the Electoral College Works Today

How does the Electoral College work in 2024? Although the system can seem complex, it essentially boils down to a few key points:

• Electoral Votes: Each state is allocated electors based on its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. There are 538 electors, and a candidate needs a majority—270 electoral votes—to win the presidency.
• Winner-Take-All: In most states, the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote receives all of that state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska use a proportional system, where electoral votes can be split between candidates.

As the role of the Electoral College became more defined, so did the tactics that could influence its outcomes. Let’s talk about a few things that may or may not be adding value to our democracy:

Gerrymandering’s Influence

One such tactic is gerrymandering, redrawing electoral district boundaries to favor a particular party. While gerrymandering primarily affects congressional elections, it can also impact the Electoral College by shaping which party controls state legislatures and how electoral votes are allocated.

Gerrymandering allows political parties to manipulate district lines to create “safe” districts, thus ensuring that a particular party has a better chance of winning the state’s electoral votes. This practice reflects the ongoing political battles that shape our electoral system, often at the expense of fair representation.

Pros of Gerrymandering:

• Strategic Advantage: Gerrymandering can provide a strategic advantage to a party, ensuring that they maintain or gain control over a particular state’s electoral votes.
  
  One of the most well-known examples of gerrymandering providing a strategic advantage is in North Carolina. In the early 2010s, the state’s congressional district map was redrawn by the Republican-controlled state legislature in a way that heavily favored Republican candidates. Despite a nearly even split in voter support between the two major parties, the gerrymandered districts allowed Republicans to win 10 of the 13 congressional seats in the 2016 elections. This redistricting gave the Republican Party a significant advantage, allowing them to maintain control over the state’s electoral votes and representation in Congress despite close elections in terms of popular vote.
  
• Political Stability: Supporters argue that securing strongholds for political parties can lead to more stable political outcomes, reducing the likelihood of dramatic power shifts.
  
  Supporters of gerrymandering argue that it can contribute to political stability by creating districts where the outcome is more predictable, thus reducing the potential for sudden shifts in political power. For example, in Maryland, where the Democratic Party has controlled the state legislature, the congressional districts have been drawn in a way that ensures a majority of Democratic representatives. This has led to consistent electoral outcomes over several election cycles, which proponents argue contributes to political stability within the state. By securing strongholds for the Democratic Party, the state has seen less fluctuation in political representation, which some believe allows for more consistent policy-making and governance.

Cons of Gerrymandering:

• Unfair Representation: Gerrymandering often leads to districts that do not accurately represent the political makeup of the population, undermining the principle of equal representation.
  
  An example of unfair representation due to gerrymandering can be seen in Pennsylvania before the state’s congressional map was redrawn in 2018. Before the redistricting, the map was heavily gerrymandered by the Republican-controlled legislature, leading to a significant distortion in representation. Despite Democrats receiving around 50% of the statewide vote in several election cycles, they consistently won only about 5 of the 18 congressional seats. The district boundaries were drawn so Democratic voters were either packed into a few districts or spread thinly across many districts, ensuring that Republican candidates had a better chance of winning a majority of the seats. This gerrymandering resulted in a congressional delegation that did not accurately reflect the political makeup of the state’s population.
  
• Erosion of Voter Confidence: Manipulated district boundaries can erode voter confidence in the electoral system, as voters may feel their votes are less impactful.
  
  The erosion of voter confidence due to gerrymandering can be seen in the reaction to Wisconsin’s state legislative districts, redrawn by Republicans in 2011. The new map was drawn in a way that heavily favored Republican candidates, leading to a significant disconnect between the popular vote and the number of seats won by each party. For example, in the 2018 state assembly elections, Democrats won 53% of the statewide vote but only secured 36 of the 99 seats. This discrepancy led many voters, particularly those in heavily gerrymandered districts, to feel that their votes did not matter and that the system was rigged against them. The perception that the electoral system was manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes contributed to a broader erosion of trust in the democratic process and increased public cynicism about the fairness of elections.

Faithless Electors

Another intriguing and sometimes controversial aspect of the Electoral College is the phenomenon of “faithless electors.” These are electors who, for various reasons, choose not to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. Although this is rare, it has occurred in several elections throughout history. Some states have laws that penalize or replace faithless electors, but others do not. While a faithless elector has ever decided an election, their existence adds another layer of complexity and unpredictability to the Electoral College system.

Pros of Faithless Electors:

• Moral Decision-Making: Some argue that faithless electors are a safeguard, allowing electors to use their judgment in extreme cases where the pledged candidate may be deemed unfit.
  
  One of the most famous examples of a faithless elector exercising moral decision-making occurred in the 1796 presidential election. Samuel Miles, an elector from Pennsylvania, was pledged to vote for Federalist candidate John Adams. However, he chose instead to vote for Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate. Miles reportedly believed that Jefferson was a better choice for the country despite the wishes of those who had chosen him as an elector. This incident sparked a debate about the role of electors and whether they should act according to their judgment or strictly follow the popular vote in their state.
  
• Flexibility: Faithless electors allow flexibility in the system, acknowledging that circumstances can change between election day and the day electors cast their votes.
  
  In the 2016 presidential election, several electors became “faithless” by voting for someone other than their pledged candidate, largely in protest against Donald Trump. Some electors argued that the revelations about Trump’s conduct and qualifications, which had surfaced after the election, warranted a re-evaluation of their vote. For example, two electors in Texas who were pledged to Trump instead voted for John Kasich and Ron Paul, citing their belief that these candidates were more suitable for the presidency given the circumstances. This demonstrated how the flexibility of faithless electors allows them to respond to new information or changing situations between election day and the casting of electoral votes.

Cons of Faithless Electors:

• Unpredictability: Faithless electors introduce an element of unpredictability into the electoral process, which can undermine the will of the voters.
  
  An example of the unpredictability introduced by faithless electors occurred in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. While the final result was ultimately decided by a Supreme Court ruling rather than by faithless electors, the close nature of the election highlighted the potential for faithless electors to disrupt the outcome. If just a few electors had decided to vote contrary to their pledge, it could have thrown the already contentious election into further chaos, potentially sending the decision to the House of Representatives or creating a constitutional crisis. The mere possibility of such a scenario underscores how faithless electors can introduce uncertainty and unpredictability into the electoral process.
  
• Potential for Abuse: Critics argue that faithless electors could be influenced by external pressures, financial incentives, or personal biases rather than reflecting the popular vote.
  
  A notable concern about the potential for abuse by faithless electors can be seen in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, where fears arose that external pressures might sway electors. Reports circulated that some electors received death threats, financial offers, or other forms of coercion to change their votes. Although none of these efforts resulted in widespread defection, the incident highlighted the risk that faithless electors could be influenced by personal biases, external pressures, or even financial incentives rather than reflecting the will of the voters in their state. This potential for abuse raises concerns about the integrity of the electoral process and the true representation of the electorate’s choice.

Superdelegates

While superdelegates are not part of the Electoral College, they are a crucial component of the Democratic Party’s nomination process. Superdelegates are party officials and leaders with the power to vote for the party’s presidential nominee, independent of the outcomes of state primaries and caucuses. Unlike regular delegates, who are bound to support a candidate based on primary or caucus results, superdelegates are free to support any candidate they choose.

Pros of Superdelegates:

• Experienced Decision-Makers: Superdelegates are often experienced party leaders who deeply understand the political landscape. Their votes can serve as a stabilizing force, particularly in closely contested primaries.
  
  An example of superdelegates acting as experienced decision-makers occurred during the 2008 Democratic primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As the primary season progressed, the race became extremely close, with neither candidate securing a decisive lead in pledged delegates. Superdelegates, many of whom were long-time party officials and leaders with a deep understanding of the political landscape, played a crucial role in determining the outcome. Ultimately, many superdelegates shifted their support to Obama, recognizing his strong grassroots support and potential to unify the party for the general election. Their decision helped stabilize the party and allowed it to rally around a single candidate before the convention.
  
• Party Unity: Superdelegates can help ensure that the party nominates a candidate who is most likely to unify the party and win the general election.
  
  Superdelegates also played a critical role in maintaining party unity during the 1984 Democratic primary. In that election, former Vice President Walter Mondale faced a strong challenge from Senator Gary Hart. While Hart had significant support among younger voters, Mondale had deep connections within the Democratic establishment. As the primary season drew to a close, Mondale did not have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination outright. However, superdelegates, many seasoned party leaders, supported Mondale, believing he was the candidate best positioned to unite the party and compete against the incumbent president, Ronald Reagan, in the general election. This support from superdelegates ensured that the Democratic Party presented a united front, even after a contentious primary battle.

Cons of Superdelegates:

• Perception of Elitism: Critics argue that superdelegates undermine the democratic process by allowing party elites to have disproportionate influence over the nomination, which can be perceived as elitist and undemocratic.
  
  An example of the perception of elitism surrounding superdelegates can be seen in the 2016 Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Throughout the primary season, Sanders garnered significant grassroots support, particularly among younger voters and progressives, and won several states. However, Clinton secured the overwhelming majority of superdelegate support early in the race, which gave her a substantial lead before many states had even voted. Critics argued that this early and strong backing from party elites gave the impression that the nomination was rigged in favor of Clinton, regardless of the will of the voters. This perception fueled resentment among Sanders’ supporters, who felt that the superdelegate system undermined the democratic process by allowing party insiders disproportionate influence over the outcome.
  
• Potential for Conflict: The existence of superdelegates can create tension between the party establishment and grassroots supporters, particularly if superdelegates vote against the popular choice.
  
  The potential for conflict between the party establishment and grassroots supporters was also evident during the 1980 Democratic National Convention. Incumbent President Jimmy Carter faced a strong primary challenge from Senator Ted Kennedy. Although Carter won the majority of the primaries and had a lead in pledged delegates, Kennedy continued his campaign all the way to the convention, hoping to persuade superdelegates to switch their support. Many of Kennedy’s supporters felt that Carter’s policies had alienated the liberal wing of the party, and they lobbied superdelegates to vote against the sitting president. This created significant tension within the party, as the superdelegates were caught between the wishes of the party establishment, which backed Carter, and the demands of grassroots activists pushing for a change in direction. Although Carter ultimately secured the nomination, the conflict over superdelegates left deep divisions within the Democratic Party that persisted into the general election.

Recent Proposals for Electoral College Changes

Several proposals have emerged in the last five years to reform or abolish the Electoral College. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is one of the most prominent. This initiative seeks to ensure that the presidency is awarded to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide without needing a constitutional amendment. States that join the compact agree to allocate their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Still, the compact only takes effect if states representing at least 270 electoral votes—the number needed to win the presidency—join.

Pros of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

• Alignment with Popular Will: The NPVIC would ensure that the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide becomes President, aligning the Electoral College’s outcome with the popular vote. This would address many’s frustrations when a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College.
• Reduction of Swing State Focus: By shifting the focus to the national popular vote, candidates would be incentivized to campaign across the entire country rather than concentrating their efforts on a few swing states. This could lead to a more inclusive and representative campaign process.
• Simplification of the Electoral Process: The NPVIC would simplify the presidential election process by clarifying that the candidate with the most votes wins, reducing confusion and controversy.

Cons of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

• Potential Legal Challenges: The NPVIC could face significant legal challenges as it fundamentally changes how electoral votes are allocated without a constitutional amendment. The legality of the compact could be questioned, leading to prolonged court battles.
• Undermining State Sovereignty: Critics argue that the NPVIC undermines the role of states in the federal system by binding them to a national outcome, regardless of how their voters choose. This could be seen as diminishing the importance of individual state elections.
• Risk of Marginalizing Smaller States: If the focus shifts to the national popular vote, smaller and less populous states might receive even less attention from candidates, who could concentrate on populous urban areas to maximize their vote totals.

Consider referencing ongoing legal discussions or political analyses related to the NPVIC.

What Happens if the Electoral College is Abolished?

If the Electoral College were to be abolished, the United States would shift to a direct popular vote system for electing the President. This would represent a major change in the way American democracy functions.

Benefits of Abolishing the Electoral College:

• True Majority Rule: A direct popular vote would ensure that the candidate with the most votes nationwide becomes President, which many see as a more democratic approach that truly reflects the will of the people.
• Increased Voter Engagement: Voters in all states, regardless of size or political leaning, might feel more empowered to vote, knowing that their individual vote contributes directly to the national outcome.
• Elimination of “Swing State” Politics: Eliminating the Electoral College would likely reduce the outsized influence of swing states, leading to a more balanced and nationwide campaign strategy from candidates.

Risks of Abolishing the Electoral College:

• Loss of Federal Balance: The Electoral College is designed to balance the power between states of different sizes. Without it, there is a risk that larger, more populous states could dominate presidential elections, marginalizing smaller states.
• Potential for Regional Divides: Without the Electoral College, there is a possibility that presidential candidates could win by focusing heavily on certain regions, leading to greater regional polarization and less attention to the diverse needs of the entire country.
• Challenges in Implementing Change: Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, which is difficult and lengthy and requires broad political consensus, which may be challenging to achieve in today’s polarized environment.

As we move forward, the future of the Electoral College remains uncertain. Discussions about potential reforms, such as the NPVIC, continue, reflecting the ongoing debate over how to best represent the will of the American people in the election of their President. The Electoral College remains a critical and often contentious element of American democracy, balancing state and national interests in a diverse and ever-evolving nation.

---

Top To-Dos for Understanding the Modern Electoral College

1. Examine the Role of Gerrymandering: Understand how gerrymandering can influence electoral outcomes and its implications for democracy.
2. Learn About Faithless Electors: Explore the impact of faithless electors on past elections and the potential risks they pose.
3. Investigate Superdelegates: Delve into the role of superdelegates in the Democratic Party’s nomination process and their influence on the electoral system.
4. Explore Recent Proposals: Study the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and other recent proposals to reform or abolish the Electoral College.
5. Consider the Implications of Abolishing the Electoral College: Reflect on the potential benefits and risks of moving to a direct popular vote system.