Popular vote not the only decider in US election

Controversy on the recent US election has centred on the fact that while president-elect Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote and thus the presidency, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Trump received 300,000 fewer votes than Clinton. Subsequently, many are calling for electoral reform.

The election system in America works by having voters in a state cast their ballots for their electors, who in turn pledge to vote for certain candidates, which elect the President and Vice-President. All states except Maine and Nevada operate a policy whereby the candidate who receives the most votes from individual citizens receives all the Electoral College votes from their state. The amount of electors in a state is equivalent to the members of Congress the state qualifies for. Therefore, there are 538 electors. A 270 majority is required to win the Presidency.

Critics say the process undermines the principle of democracy that gives each person and equal vote, given that a vote in Vermont can be worth up to 3.5 times a vote cast in New York, due to the smaller population in Vermont and the aspect of the Electoral College system which guarantees every state at least 3 votes. They also suggest it enables party candidates to ignore states that traditionally always vote for a particular party. Trump himself offered criticism of the Electoral College system as recently as the 2012 election, referring to it as a “disaster for democracy.”

However, the system has its benefits, namely reducing the possibility of daunting national re-counts. Moreover, it would be likely that if the national popular vote was the ultimate decider that candidates would focus their attention on cities and ignore rural under-populated areas. Further, there would be pandemonium in traditionally Democratic or Republican states if all their electoral votes went towards the other party because they won the popular vote nationally.

The Electoral College system was established in 1787. Without internet and modern technology, it was vastly easier to count hundreds of votes as opposed to millions. The Founding Fathers did not believe the masses had the capabilities or the information available to them to make such an important decision. They also wished to ensure that voters of smaller states had the opportunity to make their wishes heard. As such, they appointed electors that would represent them.

There are about twenty states in which it is not a crime for an elector not to honour their state’s voting desires, but it is extremely rare for them to do so and has never had an impact on determining the identity of the ultimate President. This year the electors will cast their votes on December 19th. Many passionate Clinton supporters hold onto a last shred of hope that the electors will refuse to honour their pledges and instead elect the Democratic Party nominee who won the popular vote. However, this is extremely unlikely as to do so would be to defy the will of the people in their respective state and cripple an American principle of democracy in the process. Moreover, Clinton herself has conceded the election and has given no sign that she would participate in the endeavour.

It has happened only five times in history where a president has been elected and not won the popular vote. The most recent occurrence before this year was 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush.

Reformists have suggested following the path of Nevada and Maine and splitting the Electoral College votes in proportion to the votes of the state’s individual citizens. The best chance at reform of the voting system may still be a while off; 10 states and the District of Columbia have joined in an agreement known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would compel states involved to give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

However, the pact will not come into effect until enough states have joined as to ensure the move would result in electing the winner to the Presidency. The agreement does, however, negate the need to amend the US Constitution which total reform would require. Whatever the outcome, it is certain that any reform to a system that has spanned centuries would have to be carefully considered and bipartisan.