Electoral college works, no need to abolish it
Since the mid-19th century, the Electoral College has served our country very well.
Only in the elections of 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 has a presidential candidate won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. This is a very small number of elections over the course of our nation’s history.
There is a chorus out there, mainly among Democrats running for president in 2020, to abolish the Electoral College and instead use the national popular vote to determine presidential winners.
This is a terrible idea. Our founders created the Electoral College to prevent future presidential candidates from focusing their campaign efforts on a few high-population states while essentially ignoring those with less population. Under this arrangement, candidates ignore the concerns of those less-populated states at their own risk, as Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton learned during the 2016 race.
Democrats saw what Donald Trump did in 2016 by getting 304 votes in the Electoral College, well over the 270 needed to be elected president. They know if Trump picked up states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, that the math doesn’t work for them. Democrats often cite how Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump but lost the Electoral College as justification for getting rid of the Electoral College. But had Clinton not taken for granted the states she lost that we previously mentioned, she would be president now.
Trump’s victory, and those of many other presidents before him on both sides of the political aisle, are solid proof that the Electoral College works. We do have to ask: Would there be this outcry from the national Democratic Party if their candidates had been elected through the Electoral College rather than their Republican opponents? History shows that Democrat Grover Cleveland lost the popular vote but had sufficient Electoral College votes to win in 1888.
Unlike Democratic presidential candidates Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, Republicans accepted past election defeats and moved on. But these candidates can’t do that for two reasons. First, they are still bitter that Trump was elected president in 2016. Second, they want their overwhelming numbers in states like New York and California to play into their favor. They know they’ll never carry middle America with their far-left views, and they know Trump proved he can win some traditionally blue states that Democrats so desperately need to get elected.
Perhaps if far-left Democrats adjusted their platforms to better represent a large majority of Americans on issues such as border security, a surging economy and late-term abortions, they could potentially put some of these flyover states in play. But we know they would never do this, as they need their base to win the nomination.
It’s also worth noting that it requires a constitutional amendment to change the Electoral College. This is something we see as difficult to achieve.
We believe that for nearly 200 years, the Electoral College has served our country very well, and we see no need to change it. We believe those calling for it to be changed need to be very cautious of changing something that would be detrimental to numerous states that are less populated than those such as New York and California.