Well, at least we can agree on something.
In an age of divisive politics, with a contentious election looming, a large majority of Americans are united in opposition to the Electoral College. According to the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of Americans would prefer to see the winner of the popular vote become the next president.
The poll, conducted from Aug. 26 to Sept. 2, found that 35 percent favor retaining the Electoral College to determine the winner of the presidency. (An aside: Although journalists are notoriously math challenged, we think 63 percent plus 35 percent means 2 percent of respondents slept through social studies class.)
Even among people who identify as Republicans or say they lean Republican, 46 percent of respondents say they would prefer to replace the Electoral College.
Which is interesting, because in the current political landscape, Republicans have little chance of winning the presidency if it is decided by the people. The Democratic nominee has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight elections. But Republicans George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 captured the presidency through the largesse of the Electoral College.
This does not seem democratic. Nor does it portend well for the future of our democracy. Try explaining the Electoral College to a 12-year-old and try justifying how the candidate with the most votes doesn’t win an election. And then you can wonder whether that 12-year-old will grow up to have faith in our system of government.
All of this, of course, is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. And it probably made sense 235 years ago. Representatives of large states needed to get small states on board, so they made some concessions. But two centuries later, it is a threat to our nation.
First, there are the logistics; the fact that supporters of Donald Trump thought they could employ fake electors to steal the 2020 election reflects major flaws in the system. Second, there is a lack of logic; each electoral vote in Wyoming equals approximately 192,000 people, while each electoral vote in California represents approximately 721,000 residents.
In Washington, for comparison, each electoral vote equals roughly 670,000 residents, meaning that voters in Wyoming are 3½ times more powerful than you are when it comes to choosing a president. So much for all votes being equal.
Complaining about this inequity is, of course, pointless. Amending the Constitution requires approval from 38 states, and small-population states have no reason to give their approval. Who would willingly give up influence?
Meanwhile, 17 states (including Washington) have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This would award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, and it will take effect if states comprising more than half the electoral votes sign on. But guess what? Approval has come exclusively from blue states; unless several red states sign on, the exercise is pointless.
And yet, there is an attainable path to mitigating some of the absurdity of the Electoral College. Membership in the House of Representatives has been fixed at 435 since the 1929 Permanent Apportion Act. Back then, there were 247,000 Americans for each representative; today, there are 772,000.
Increasing the size of the House not only would bring representation closer to the people; it would alter the Electoral College math. If the population of the smallest state (Wyoming) were used at the baseline for one representative, the House would increase to approximately 572 members and apportionment would more accurately reflect the population of each state.
It also would make the Electoral College more equitable while retaining a slight Senate-created advantage for small states. Washington, for example, would increase from 12 electoral votes to 16; Wyoming would retain three electoral votes.
Such a change is unlikely, but it is more realistic than amending the Constitution. And it would provide a tune-up for the Electoral College — which most of us agree is needed.
