It seems like, for once, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has gotten something right.
On March 19, the Democratic presidential candidate pushed for the abolition of the Electoral College during a CNN town hall, saying that its removal is necessary if you want every vote to count. Republicans, especially after benefiting in the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, have become stalwart defenders of the current system. But the Electoral College as it exists now only undermines faith in the government and should be abolished altogether.
The typical defense of the Electoral College cites the Founding Fathers’ positions on the danger of unfettered democracy. So the story goes, they saw a need for a system to keep large, highly-populated states from oppressing those with fewer people. But that story might not be true, and even if it is, the Electoral College isn’t fulfilling its purpose.
Although modern rhetoric suggests that the founders wisely wanted to avoid domination of presidential elections by one populous state, that argument isn’t in the Federalist Papers, the set of essays written to defend and explain the Constitution. In Federalist 68, authored by Alexander Hamilton, the interests of small states are never even brought up. James Madison, often dubbed “The Father of the Constitution,” explicitly preferred a national popular vote to determine the president, only going along with the Electoral College to appease the southern states.
It’s clear that the Founders never considered the institution a core, essential part of the constitutional system. So it’s not ridiculous to question its usefulness now.
Warren does bring up a serious argument in favor of repealing the Electoral College that shouldn’t be ignored. In the town hall, Warren claimed that it doesn’t make all states matter in the way advocates claim, but merely switches the focus from large states to swing states.
Specifically, Warren claims that presidential candidates simply don’t visit uncompetitive states, like Mississippi. One of the most repeated defenses of the Electoral College is that it keeps New York and California from exercising undue influence on presidential elections. But is a system where Ohio, Florida, and a few other swing states exclusively decide the president a better alternative? There’s no good reason that Ohio should decide the president for the rest of the country.
Defenders often claim, too, that the Electoral College forces candidates to care about rural areas, rather than just urban areas — but it doesn’t. As Warren argued, presidential candidates simply don’t visit small rural states like Mississippi, Montana, and Utah. Trump did invest resources in several key flyover states, such as my home state of Michigan, but none of those states were small. Michigan, for instance, has the tenth-largest population of any state. Pennsylvania comes in at number five. Under a popular vote system, these states would still get attention. With the number of electoral votes still determined mostly by population, the Electoral College doesn’t truly force candidates to worry about the small rural states.
Ultimately, the Electoral College rarely matters. Since the first constitutional presidential election in 1788, there have been 58 presidential elections. Out of those, in only five has the winner of the popular vote failed to take the Electoral College. In all five cases, the result led to intense public backlash.
The Electoral College fails to accomplish the goals its defenders claim it will. It doesn’t make small states matter, it doesn’t force candidates to campaign in rural areas, and it doesn’t even have an impact on most elections. As it exists now, its sole purpose seems to be to create needless controversy on Election Day. Republicans can win elections without the Electoral College, and the Right needs to be willing to have a serious conversation about its abolition.
David Doerr (@davidrdoerr1) is a student at Hillsdale College and a writer for Young Voices.
