In the aftermath of the 2024 election, Donald Trump emerged victorious, capturing a startling 72 percent of the vote in Wyoming and securing over 60 percent in 13 other states. This outcome signifies that, in these regions, the majority of voters got the president they desired. However, an unsettling reality looms over the election process: had just a million votes shifted in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan, Kamala Harris could have been the President-elect. This situation illustrates a paradox in the democratic process where dramatic disparities exist between state-level majorities and national outcomes. The notion of democracy being the “voice of the people” becomes questionable when the electoral system allows a candidate to win the presidency without securing a majority of votes in numerous states.
This disparity is not an isolated phenomenon; throughout recent American elections, we’ve frequently seen electoral outcomes that negate the large majorities in many states. In 2012, for instance, Mitt Romney claimed over 60 percent of the vote in nine states, including 72 percent in Utah, yet Barack Obama won the presidency. Similarly, in the 2020 election, more than 60 percent of voters in ten states voted against Joe Biden. Such scenarios raise the essential question of which majority represents “the will of the people” when significant swathes in various states have divergent political preferences. The reality is that voters in places like Utah and Massachusetts might find themselves governed by decisions made by people living thousands of miles away with no direct stake in their locale.
Legal structures surrounding presidential elections add another layer of complexity. Courts have upheld the view that the only majority that matters is the national one, regardless of state sentiments. This is reflected in the functioning of the Electoral College, which can distort the popular vote. Historical examples show that candidates can win the presidency without securing a true majority; Bill Clinton, for instance, entered the White House with only 43 percent of the popular vote in 1992. Since 1988, no candidate has won more than 53 percent of the popular vote, suggesting that many presidential elections hinge on razor-thin margins, diminishing the validity of claims regarding majority will in democratic elections.
Furthermore, the evolving concentration of power within the presidency has drawn criticism of the current electoral framework. In the early 19th century, presidential powers were limited and largely required Congressional consent for domestic actions. Today, however, presidents wield significant control over federal policies affecting states, often undermining the will of local majorities. In an era characterized by executive orders and strong unilateral decision-making, the traditional checks and balances seem weakened, leading to increasing frustration across regions where residents feel disregarded by a federal government they see as unresponsive to their needs.
The entrenched nature of this system poses significant challenges to dissenting states. Regardless of how vehemently a state’s populace may oppose federal directives, they remain trapped within a governance structure from which they cannot opt out. This is fundamentally at odds with the principles of representation and consent, as communities find themselves subjected to policies that do not reflect their preferences. The inability to disengage from a federal system that fails to address state-specific concerns creates feelings of disenfranchisement among voters and complicates the relationship between state and federal authorities.
To confront these systemic issues, advocates argue for a reexamination and potential dismantling of the current political order, promoting options such as decentralization and even secession. They contend that accepting the status quo only perpetuates a cycle of federal technocracy dictating terms to local communities. Given the deeply ingrained notions of following “the rules,” many citizens remain unaware or unwilling to challenge the flawed system that governs them. Without a collective shift in mentality towards a decentralized model of governance, the prospect of meaningful political reform seems dim, leaving voters to grapple with policies shaped by distant powers that do not represent their interests. The enduring struggle lies in finding a balance between maintaining national unity while respecting the distinct needs and voices of diverse state populations.