Your vote is fifty times less valuable than a person who lives in a different state than you. That is assuming of course that you don’t reside in either a “battleground” state or a smaller state with a high number of electors per capita. But why do these phenomena in our democracy occur? That is by virtue of the Electoral College, America’s arcane process of electing the president, devised by the framers as a means to shift power away from the Northern states.

The Electoral College consists of electors in each state that cast their votes for the president based on how their constituents voted in the general election. Each state gets their total number of votes decided based on the population of the state plus two guaranteed senators. Their is a total of 538 electoral votes 100 of which comes from the two senators awarded to each state and 438 of which is delegated based on the population of the state. In order to win the election a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes (270). As a result presidents design their campaign by means of trying to win this majority of votes rather than the most actual direct votes. The purpose behind this strategy is that states electoral votes are delegated to the candidate on a winner-take-all basis whereby the candidate who wins the state wins all of the electors regardless of how large or small the margin of victory. This leads to a key targeting of states called battleground states, which could swing either democrat or republican depending on the year, where most of the candidates time and money is poured into. If it seems a candidate will win a state the opposing candidate often finds no reason in campaigning in that state or trying to win votes in as state whose outcome they view as foregone. This often leads to many questioning the value of their vote for example, a Republican in California or a Democrat in Alabama.

The Electoral College was a system built of compromise in the primordial days of our democracy’s existence. The early framers knew that a system whereby the president was elected by only free white residents would not work for the southern states, take Virginia for example whose population accounted for only 40% free white residents and 60% enslaved people. The result was the creation of the contentious “three fifths compromise” whereby for the allocation of electors, enslaved people would count for three fifths of a person. The shift of the majority power away from the Northern states was made so that anyone elected president in the future would not be grossly incompetent by anyone’s means, well that worked just fine…

Therein lies the problem with the Electoral College and why it should be abolished some argue. The Electoral College was designed to shift power away from some and towards others, and while most agree its creation was necessary to ensure peace early on in our nation’s creation, many today find it obsolete. That is because this imbalance of a value of a vote is still prevalent to this day. Both parties agree that their vote should hold equal value however it has been Democrats in recent history who have faced the Electoral College’s wrath.

Of the five elections in history that have went against the popular vote 4 of the 5 have been won by the Republican candidate much to the dismay of the democrats. This happened as recently as 2016 where despite winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million, Hillary Clinton lost the election. Many find this unfair as members of both parties strongly believe that people should elect the president, but under these circumstances that was simply not the case but rather a political algorithm.

Another point of contention with the Electoral College is that it paints or country as either red or blue, depending on the states individual primary, while our country, in reality, is a very healthy shade of purple. Moreover recently Democrats have pointed to electoral maps recently appearing a majority red, as the Republican Party typically wins more states with a lower number of electoral votes while Democrats win less states with a higher population and thus more electoral votes, as unfair. This, Democrats claim, is an unfair advantage Republicans have for purposes of campaigning and propaganda and is not representative of our country. Below is a gif which demonstrates why Democrats believe they gave a genuine gripe.

Yet another issue which some Democrats have with the Electoral College that I found really fascinating, is how the Electoral College was and still very much is racially motivated. Upon doing some research I stumbled across a quotation from a time when the Electoral College was actually the closest it has been to being abolished, having passed the House but was shut down by sweet Southern senators. The following quote admittedly makes me a little sick to my stomach, from Alabama Senator James Allen, “The Electoral College is one of the South’s few remaining safeguards, let’s keep it”. Now to what safeguard is Allen actually referring to? Well many believe he is indistinctly referring to suppression of black voters. Either way, studies indicate the Electoral College still succeeds at suppressing black voters, below is a chart of the states with highest relative voting power along with the racial demographic of the states.

As with all controversies, it’s important to examine media surrounding the controversy and analyze how the rhetor accomplishes their goals. The first piece which I chose to analyze was written by professor Darrell M. West, a highly regarded peer-reviewed professor of American Politics. Immediately, West establishes ethos about why he is qualified to speak on the topic “For years when I taught campaigns and elections at Brown University”. The rhetor expects that the reader is familiar with Brown University, an Ivy league school, and to accept that his role as a Politics professor qualifies him to speak about politics. Next, West makes an important statement to detractors of abolishing the Electoral College claiming that for most of his career he agreed with their stance however, recently he has changed his view on the Electoral College. This is a really effective statement by West that helps him better relate to his opposition saying he was once like them but upon preponderance of evidence changed his position. This stacks really well with the ethos West previously established as West counts on a detractor reading this and thinking “Wow! An Ivy League professor who once shared my views changed his mind, let’s see what he has to say.” After which West expertly delivers the logos, walking readers through the history of the electoral college, the bipartisan issue of faithless electors, why the Electoral College isn’t suited for the modern era, and lastly how it could reasonably be abolished. This article was expertly written by West and functions to provide excellent insight while appeasing the needs of readers of both parties.

Next, let’s look at an article that walks the partisan line a little less elegantly, skewing towards the left, yet still offers valuable insight on how this controversy is structured nonetheless. The Rhetor, Sean Illing, is a writer for left leaning media Vox. While West’s article was written for members of both parties, the intended audience for Illing’s article is Democrats. The sharp word choice by Illing is what I first picked up on upon reading the article, which reveal Illing’s feelings towards the topic as he repeatedly refers to Electoral College as “anti-democratic” and refers to the creation of the Electoral College as of “shoddy origins”. In the interview Illing included in the article between New York Times editorial board member and author Jesse Wegman and himself Illing purposely attempts to lead Wegman to make points which help his argument. The first time Illing tries to coax Wegman into helping his argument occurs when Illing asks “But has the Electoral College ever operated the way it was intended to operate?” Now speaking objectively this is a very loaded question and I think the answer Wegman gives actually might hurt their credibility, as Wegman simply replies no. Again objectively speaking I might argue that any time the Electoral college did not decide the election it technically “did it’s job” so I’m not entirely sure the answer “no” is helpful here. Next, Illing tries to coax Wegman into speaking who the Electoral College actually harms, keep in mind Illing’s audience is almost exclusively Democrats. “Okay, but the dynamics have changed, right? Now the Electoral College benefits the Republican Party almost exclusively.” I think this a much stronger way to actually influence the audience by Illing here, if your audience consists almost exclusively of Democrats, the main thing they need to hear from this article is how the Electoral College is damaging their political party. Illing’s article I believe does a serviceable job of getting information to his audience, and Illing himself does a good job of gathering information that helps his argument.

Next I chose to analyze article “In Defense of the Electoral College” by Allen Guelzo published by National Affairs. Nat Aff is a more conservative leaning form of media but again Guelzo does a good job of structuring his argument. Guelzo seldom sets up pathos or ethos but rather offers an overload of logos to help his argument. He prefaces his argument by stating the Electoral College is not antiquated nor toxic by nature but instead is misunderstood in it’s function. Guelzo goes through the history of the formation of the constitution, why the “one man, one vote” argument hold no constitutional merit, and whether or not the Electoral College is cumbersome. I think Guelzo actually does a great job of picking out individual arguments and countering them, however I do find the content rather elitist. This I believe coincides with Guelzo’s audience as readers of Nat Aff are likely wealthy, educated conservatives, so despite the article’s valid content that is a barrier which must be overcome.

Although a majority of Americans may want the electoral college abolished it likely isn’t going anywhere. The Electoral College was founded as a means of shifting electing power from one group to another and has continued to do so for as long as it has existed. Recently, it has been Republicans who have benefitted and Democrats who have called for abolition however the roles have reversed many times before depending on the political state of the country. The Electoral College is frankly not going anywhere, For as long as there are benefactors there will always be defenders and the Electoral college is pretty good at it’s job.

Works Cited

Goldberg, Jonah. “Sorry – Abolishing the Electoral College Is Still a Terrible Idea.” New York Post, New York Post, 16 Sept. 2020, nypost.com/2020/09/15/sorry-abolishing-the-electoral-college-is-still-a-terrible-idea/. 

Guelzo, Allen, et al. “In Defense of the Electoral College.” National Affairs, www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college. 

Illing, Sean. “A Definitive Case against the Electoral College.” Vox, Vox, 21 July 2020, www.vox.com/21142223/electoral-college-2020-election-jesse-wegman. 

West, Darrell M. “It’s Time to Abolish the Electoral College.” Brookings, Brookings, 13 Mar. 2020, http://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/.