Winner-Take-All Ignores the Will of Too Many Voters: The Electoral College should follow the popular vote.

AuthorPearson, Christopher

Americans want a popular vote for president. Fortunately, how the Electoral College functions is up to the states. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." The red and blue map we watch on election night is not set in stone; it's set in state statutes.

Forty-eight states have adopted the "winner-take-all" law. This law, for example, gave then-candidate Donald Trump all of Pennsylvania's 20 electors the moment he got one vote more than Hillary Clinton inside Pennsylvania.

Winner-take-all is creating problems for states and the country as a whole.

Consider, the winner-take-all rule is why 70% of American voters are ignored, while campaigns shower attention on five to 12 battleground states. In 2016, two-thirds of the general election campaign (spending and events) took place in only six states; 94% was centered in just 12 states.

Ignoring so many voters has an impact beyond campaigns. Florida and other battleground states get more disaster declarations, more federal waivers, more presidentially controlled spending and so on.

The winner-take-all rule is also why the second-place candidate has won the White House twice in our lifetimes. States are already working to fix the Electoral College. Since 2006, the national popular vote bill has passed in 15 states plus the District of Columbia. These 16 jurisdictions hold 196 electors. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes to reach a majority (270 of 538). The Electoral College would then be guaranteed to follow the popular vote winner because enacting states agree to award their electors to the candidate who's won the popular vote in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.

Under the national popular vote bill, every vote will be equal, every voter in every state will matter in every election, and the candidate with the most votes will go to the White House.

Opponents of a popular vote have a tough time arguing that votes shouldn't be equal so they float obscure arguments against states adopting a new law for electors. For instance, they argue that New York and California will somehow swamp all the rest of us--ignoring that these two big states make up only 18% of the country.

Opponents argue we won't have an official tally of the popular vote. Or that a secretary of state could thwart the country's ability to have an official...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT