With election season underway, the Electoral College is once again thrust into the spotlight. Campaigns are bombarding the seven battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, hoping to push former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris above 270 electoral votes. Some analysts suggest a repeat of the 2016 election could occur: a Trump victory despite losing the popular vote. The opinion poll analysis group FiveThirtyEight gives this scenario a 15% chance as of October 7th. Polling shows that despite a two-point national lead for Harris, she is essentially tied with Trump in the aforementioned battleground states.

Many question whether the Electoral College is just, given it has usurped the will of the people twice in the 21st century. According to the Pew Research Center, 63% of Americans support its abolition. Despite this widespread animosity towards the system, there are various reasons to sustain this historical institution of American democracy.

First, the Electoral College ensures adequate representation for all regions. The United States is composed of states, each with its distinct political interests. States deserve to be the focal point of American politics, not the distant federal government, due to their proximity to constituents. Under a states' rights framework, there should be minimal federal involvement with state affairs, instead focusing on interstate matters and national problems. By extension, the elections should be focused on the state level, with the election results of individual states determining the political makeup of the country. The largely used winner-take-all system ensures each state’s interests are represented and unphased by out-of-state votes. The only abnormalities are Nebraska and Maine, which split their electoral votes proportionally. This state framework does not negate the interests of the people, it merely couples these interests into geographical groupings on which federal elections are dependent (this is already the case for legislative elections). 

The representation of all states in this voting system, including those with smaller populations, ensures all interests are accounted for. While it is beneficial to represent large swaths of voters, it is also beneficial to ensure large cities in states like New York, California, and Illinois do not suffocate the unique interests of rural states such as Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota, currently bolstered by two electoral votes for their senators. The influence of cities would be further compounded by financial constraints. Under a popular vote system, hosting a few large events in cities would be more cost-effective than numerous small events across rural America, thus further bolstering the political influence of cities. Rural communities’ voices are essential not only from an equity standpoint but also given their impact on sectors including construction and food.

Secondly, analysts lament the fundraising demands of a popular vote system and its unforeseen consequences. Candidates already use hundreds of millions of dollars to run campaigns across the seven battleground states. Under a popular vote system, grassroots contributions would fail to grow proportionally with the increased costs of a national campaign. Citizens nationwide already contribute to presidential campaigns, even when their state may not be “in play” electorally. For example, in 2016, New York and California were the top grassroots fundraising states for the Trump campaign despite overwhelmingly voting for former Secretary Hillary Clinton. With voters already donating to their preferred candidate regardless of state residency, there is no reason to believe grassroots fundraising would increase dramatically under a popular vote system. To fill this void, campaigns would rely on dark money, a predicament the American public is heavily against. Another change in campaign structuring would be an increased reliance on TV coverage and digital events to reach mass audiences.  Candidates would be beholden to six companies owning almost all of America’s media hubris, bolstering the corporate world’s grip on political agendas.

Finally, the Electoral College helps moderate presidential candidates via battleground states. Current emphases on swing-state voters force candidates to bring their platform and message toward the political center. In a popular vote scenario, candidates would increasingly focus on turning out areas of predominant political ideologies and less on gaining self-described “moderate” swing voters. This is not to argue against voter turnout, it is merely to highlight probable changes in get-out-the-vote operations. The moderation of the swing state arrangement is beneficial for a variety of reasons. First, Moderates are the largest political group in America, bringing candidates more in line with the American people. Second, centrism has been associated with respecting democratic norms, blending free market economics with government intervention, and opposing extremism. Finally, bipartisanship, which has recently been spurred by neopopulist centrism, has been shown to produce more effective lawmaking and bridge the gaps between the political left and right. The Electoral College empowers moderates nationally who promote bipartisanship and champion centrism.

As we navigate future elections, the Electoral College must be sustained as an effective pillar of the democratic system. Through delegating votes by state, the system ensures the representation of smaller states and empowers state governments. Furthermore, this system restricts the electoral battleground to a handful of swing states, moderating candidates and reducing reliance on dark money and corporate media.