As the 2024 election results are processed, it's important to remember the official determination of the U.S. president won't be finalized until December, when the Electoral College casts its votes.
Although the public votes for its preferred candidate on Election Day in November, it is the electors in the Electoral College who formally elect the president and vice president of the U.S. In reality, when constituents vote for president, they are selecting a slate of electors pledged to vote for a specific candidate.
The Electoral College is outlined in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
In short, each state is allocated electors based on its total number of Congressional delegates — both senators and representatives. For example, Ohio with 15 representatives and two senators has 17 votes in the Electoral College.
In Texas, one Electoral College vote represents 664,000 people, while in Vermont, one vote represents only 210,000. This disparity, known as malapportionment, unevenly distributes political power, giving some regions more influence despite having fewer residents.
Malapportionment undermines the principle of "one person, one vote." The U.S. Senate, for example, gives every state two senators regardless of population. This gives smaller states disproportionate power, which is magnified in the Electoral College.
Most states use a “winner-takes-all” system, where the candidate who wins the majority of votes in the state receives all of that state’s electoral votes. This system allows candidates to gain the presidency despite losing the popular vote, as was the case in 2000 and 2016 with former presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
Only Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors proportionally, dividing them based on the percentage of the popular vote in each congressional district. This system more accurately reflects the diversity of political views within a state, ensuring voters from different parts of the state have a better chance of having their votes contribute to the final result.
In 2016, about 4 million Californians voted for Donald Trump — more than any other state except Texas and Florida. But because Hillary Clinton won the state, Trump’s supporters had no impact on California’s 55 electoral votes, which all went to Clinton. This is a key example of how the winner-takes-all system can fail to represent the true political makeup of a state.
The Electoral College was originally established as a compromise during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The framers feared a direct popular vote for president would give more populous states too much power, diminishing the influence of smaller states.
Over time, the Electoral College has become a fixture of the U.S. election process, reflecting the federal structure of the government, where power is shared between the states and the national government. Although it gives rural and less populated areas a voice in the election, it can also result in a president winning without securing the popular vote — as seen in 2000 and 2016 — raising serious concerns about the fairness of the system.
If the U.S. is truly committed to the principles of democracy, the Electoral College must be redefined to more accurately reflect the will of the people.
A system allowing a candidate to win the presidency without securing the majority of the popular vote contradicts the foundation of representative democracy.
Abby Waechter is a junior studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. Have something to say? Email her at aw087421@ohio.edu or tweet her @AbbyWaechter.
