On December 16, Senate Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment aimed at abolishing the Electoral College and transitioning the U.S. presidential elections to a popular vote system. This proposal, spearheaded by Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) alongside Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), represents a significant push for electoral reform. Durbin highlighted in a press release the need for this change, describing the Electoral College as an outdated mechanism that disenfranchises millions of Americans. Schatz argued that every vote should carry equal weight, regardless of geographic location, suggesting that the current system is undemocratic. The amendment was formulated in response to a related proposal earlier made in the House of Representatives.
Establishing the Electoral College, outlined in Article II of the Constitution, directs states to appoint electors responsible for casting votes in presidential elections. While the structure has long been debated, the recent surge in advocacy for its abolition has garnered attention. Durbin emphasized that, historically, the majority of presidential elections have been won by the candidate who received the most popular votes. Notably, there have been instances where candidates were elected despite losing the popular vote, specifically referencing George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016. In his press release, Durbin pointed to these discrepancies as evidence that abolishing the system is timely, especially following the 2020 election where Trump garnered 49.9% of the popular vote against Vice President Kamala Harris.
The narrative surrounding the Electoral College is polarized, with individuals like Trump expressing contrasting views over the years. In 2012, he labeled it a “disaster for democracy,” while by 2019, he recognized its advantages, asserting that it compels candidates to campaign across many states, thereby preserving the influence of smaller states. This ongoing debate reflects a deep divide in perspectives about whether the Electoral College adequately represents the democratic will of the people or serves as a protective barrier against the “whims of the majority,” as articulated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Pursuing the abolition of the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment entails a lengthy and rigorous process. Article V of the Constitution stipulates that two-thirds of both the House and Senate must approve the amendment before sending it to the states. Following congressional approval, the amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions to be enacted. Given the current political landscape, analysts predict that the proposed legislation is likely to flounder as Congress transitions to a Republican majority next year. In alignment with this prognosis, McConnell has openly criticized calls for abolishing the Electoral College, arguing that it encourages candidates to engage with smaller, often overlooked states.
The effort to bypass the Electoral College has gained momentum through a initiative known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have committed to allocating their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote, regardless of the outcome in their own state. The NPVIC represents a collaborative strategy among participating states to influence the presidential election outcome, reflecting a broader discontent with the existing electoral framework. This compact aims to achieve the desired outcome of a popular vote-determined presidency without requiring a full constitutional amendment.
Public sentiment appears to be shifting towards favoring a popular vote system, with surveys illustrating that over 60% of Americans support changing the current electoral process. The Pew Research Center’s findings indicate a stark contrast to the 35% of respondents who advocate for retaining the Electoral College. This growing preference for reform suggests an increasing demand for a more democratic electoral process, raising important questions about the future of the U.S. electoral system and the potential implications of such changes on governance and representation in American politics. As the debate unfolds, the outcome remains uncertain, yet it certainly encapsulates the evolving conversation surrounding democracy and voter representation in the 21st century.