The long-awaited 2024 presidential election is swiftly approaching. In just a few weeks, millions
of Americans from across the country will go to the polls and cast their ballots for the next leader
of the United States of America — or so they think.
Contrary to popular belief, American citizens do not actually vote for the next president on
Election Day. Instead, Americans vote for a group of people known as electors, who are then
directly responsible for voting for the president. This process is part of the highly controversial
governmental institution known as the Electoral College.
The Electoral College utilized today has its roots in distant 18th century American politics. In the
months following American victory over Great Britain, the Founding Fathers fervently debated
how the newly established country was going to elect its president. Some argued that granting
Congress the power to choose a president might lead to corruption, while others contended that
voters were not informed enough to choose the right leaders and might generate a tyranny of the
majority. The result was a compromise between those who desired the election of the president
via a Congressional vote and those who advocated for the election of the president through a
democratic, popular vote of the people.
States, based on the size of their population, were assigned electors who voted directly for their
preferred candidate. The allocation of electors in each state, however, was entrenched in systemic
racism. Under the precepts of the Three-Fifths Compromise, enslaved individuals were deemed
as only three-fifths of a freed citizen and therefore disproportionately represented in state
populations. The voices of people of color, women, and white men without property were
effectively silenced when the Framers devised the Electoral College process.
Today, the Electoral College consists of 538 electors who vote based on a winner-takes-all
popular vote model in their respective states with the current exception of Maine and Nebraska.
Every state is automatically allotted two electors for the two Senators which represent each state
in addition to electors equal to the number of congressional districts each state contains. For
example, Maryland has eight congressional districts and two Senators equaling its 10 electoral
votes.
In order for a candidate to win the presidency, they must get a majority of 270 electoral votes.
The so-called road to 270 has caused candidates in recent years to shift campaign tactics. Instead
of exerting energy on “blue” or “red” states, or states which have historically voted Democratic
or Republican, presidential nominees have fixated their efforts on a handful of swing states. In
the 2024 election, these battleground states include Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Arizona, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. The incentivization to center policy and activity around certain states has served as a sharp catalyst for political discontent over the Electoral
College.
Tafat Boudif, a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies, states, “I generally
do not see the value of the Electoral College. One, I work as a political engagement intern with
the Center of Democracy and Civic Life, and I think that it is a huge barrier to understanding and
explaining our political system, especially for our large population of international students.
Even people who have lived here their whole lives do not understand it! Second, I think it
contributes to this idea that every individual’s vote does not matter, especially for people who
live in solid red or blue states. Under the electoral college system, the reality is that a small
percentage of voters in swing states are seen as the most important votes, leading campaigns and
candidates to consequently focus on them. If we decided the president based on popular votes,
everyone’s vote could be considered impactful and thus important.”
Another crucial point of contention with the Electoral College is its precedence over the popular
vote. Five presidents throughout the history of the United States of America have lost the popular
vote of the American people, but still won the presidency based on the Electoral College. This
has notably occurred twice in the past 20 years alone in the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections.
Annie Grove, a senior international student from Australia majoring in biology with a minor in
chemistry, was shocked when first learning about the country’s Electoral College process. Grove
said, “By deciding the election on how many votes you have won in a particular area rather than
by who was the one with the majority of the votes period is not representative of the collective
view of the people which should be a central focus in making sure that people feel politically
represented. I think as a whole certain states should not be deemed more important than one
another because they have a larger population and that this should not be the deciding factor in
securing votes, popular decision makes more sense as it is more inclusive and representative of
the general population’s political alignment.”
A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that nearly two-thirds of the
American population want the popular vote, not the Electoral College, to determine the
president. It is no surprise that people want change given the distinct American political
landscape of the 21st century. Voters now have the access of mass media at their fingertips and
can make informed decisions on candidates. Strong party disagreement and close elections are
commonplace. Women, people of color, and men without property have all been enfranchised,
although voter suppression still exists today. The primitive Electoral College is no longer
applicable to the modern political state of the country.
Cheyenne Payne is a sophomore political science and global studies major, with a world politics
minor, and an Opinion’s Reporter for The Retriever.
Contact Cheyenne at cpayne3@umbc.edu.