With Election Day mere weeks away, both campaigns continue to seek voter support, targeting swing states that will be key to winning the Electoral College.
During one of these campaign stops, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz indicated that he thinks the Electoral College should be eliminated altogether.
Though the campaign later walked back this comment, it reflects criticisms of the American electoral system that many see as a problematic historical anomaly.
‘All of us know the Electoral College needs to go’
CNN reported that Walz was speaking at a Democratic fundraiser being held at the residence of California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday when Walz said, “I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go,” according to reporters who were present at the event. “We need, we need national popular vote, but that’s not the world we live in,” Walz continued. He then laid out the need for the Harris-Walz ticket to gain victory in the swing states. “We need to win Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, win. We need to be in western Wisconsin and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win,” Walz told the crowd.
Winning the popular vote but losing the election
Although the Harris-Walz campaign later clarified that abolishing the Electoral College is not one of its official positions, Walz’s comments puts into perspective criticisms of the institution. The Electoral College has been criticized for distorting the popular vote and allowing less popular presidential candidates to win. Five elections in United States history have resulted in a candidate winning the Electoral College vote and thus the presidency despite not winning the popular vote. Three of those examples occurred in the 1800s, but the other two have happened in the last 25 years: George W. Bush’s victory over Al Gore in 2000 and Donald Trump’s win against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Clinton won nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump but lost the election based on a few thousand votes in key swing states going for the Republican, and the Harris campaign is aware of the possibility of a similar outcome this year.
Criticisms of the Electoral College
In general, the Electoral College currently advantages Republican candidates by giving disproportionate influence to small, often rural states. Beyond the partisan impact of the Electoral College, many residents in non-swing states feel that the way presidential elections are decided make these states and their issues less important to candidates. Critics also point to the history of the institution; specifically, one of the motivations for creating the Electoral College was to advantage slaveholding states, an outgrowth of the infamous three-fifths compromise in the Constitution.
Although more than 60% of Americans have been surveyed as supporting a change to electing presidents by popular vote, per Pew Research Center, such a change would require an amendment to the Constitution. That process is notoriously difficult and time-consuming, and so for now, Walz is right that both candidates are required to attempt to win based on the system that exists, not the one that they may prefer.
