At the time of the 2016 presidential election, the 10 least populous states in the union accounted for 2.87 percent of the U.S. population. But those states accounted for more than 6 percent of the electoral votes, wielding more than twice the power their population would suggest.
No, that is not the only reason Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular election by 3 million votes; he won 30 states, including big hitters such as Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania. But it does point out a growing problem with the Electoral College and the need for some serious discussion. Ultimately, Congress should recognize the shortcomings of the Electoral College and move to ensure equity and fairness in presidential elections.
The Electoral College, established in the U.S. Constitution at the document’s founding in 1789, should be abolished. But action must involve the laborious efforts required to amend the Constitution rather than subversion of the system by state legislatures.
Indeed, there is growing unrest about the Electoral College. In two of the past five elections, the candidate receiving the most votes did not win the presidency; George W. Bush was elected in 2000 despite the fact that Al Gore received more votes, and Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. This violates the cherished standard of one person, one vote.
The convoluted math that leads to such an outcome is created by the fact that each state has two U.S. senators, regardless of population. The electoral count is calculated by adding those two to the state’s number of representatives. The result is that Colorado has three times the electoral votes (9) of neighboring Wyoming (3), despite having roughly 10 times the population.
That disparity is expected to increase. Projections are that by 2040 — slightly more than 20 years from now — half of the United States’ population will be found in eight states. Those states will have 50 percent of the people but 16 percent of the representation in the Senate. Along with allowing for a tyranny of the minority in the Senate, these numbers skew the Electoral College.
While that points out the need for adjusting or abolishing the system, it does not offer suggestions for the best way to do so. Because of that, several states — including Washington — have taken matters into their own hands.
Colorado is the latest to adopt a measure that would require the state to give its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won the state vote. The new law will go into effect when states accounting for at least 270 electoral votes — the number required to win the presidency — have signed on. Washington joined the coalition in 2009, and states comprising 181 electoral votes have passed identical measures.
The popular vote should, indeed, be the determining factor in the presidential election — as it is in all other elections. But subverting the Constitution rather than amending it is not the proper way to achieve that goal.
Amendments require passage by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, then passage by 38 states (three-fourths). We recognize the difficulty — perhaps impossibility — of this approach; it is unlikely that small states will willingly undermine their own influence in presidential elections. But methods for changing the Constitution are spelled out in the nation’s founding document and should be followed.
There are problems with the Electoral College, but performing an end run is not the way to fix them.
