Near the close of their speeches at the Democratic National Convention, former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle made an impassioned plea for active support of the Harris campaign, urging listeners to “work like our lives depend on it.” President Obama said, “If we each do our part over the next 77 days—knocking on doors, making phone calls, talking to friends, and listening to neighbors—we will elect Kamala Harris as the next President of the United States.” Michelle Obama added, “Do something. You know what you need to do.”
Yet this call to action by the Obamas reveals a fundamental issue with our current electoral system: the roughly 80 percent of Americans who do not live in the few “swing states” are often left feeling powerless because their votes don’t actively support their candidates. In states deemed “safe” for either major party, efforts like canvassing or phone banking hold little strategic value. This leaves many voters who are eager to engage in a state of frustration, feeling sidelined as mere spectators rather than active participants in democracy.
The root of this problem lies in the Electoral College, particularly the practice of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins that state’s popular vote. This “winner-take-all” (WTA) Electoral College system that 48 out of 50 states currently use effectively isolates voters in non-swing states, discouraging meaningful participation and engagement. It also undermines the principle of equal representation, leading to voter apathy and disengagement, as the focus remains on a handful of battleground states.
The WTA practice has broader implications as well. It increases the likelihood that a candidate who loses the popular vote can still win the presidency, a situation that directly contradicts democratic principles. Thus, the current Electoral College system tends to depress voter turnout and concentrates campaign resources on swing states, creating a skewed political discourse that neglects the concerns of voters in states where the outcome is not in question.
Importantly, the Electoral College WTA system is not mandated by the Constitution. The Framers allowed states to decide how to allocate their electoral votes, with many initially adopting district-based methods. Over time, WTA became prevalent, driven by partisan interests. For example, Virginia adopted WTA in 1800 to ensure that John Adams would not secure any electoral votes.
Throughout American history, however, there has been significant opposition to the WTA system. For instance, during the early 19th century, multiple constitutional amendments were proposed to establish district-based or proportional systems. Even some of the Constitution’s framers, like James Madison, opposed WTA, arguing that it diminished the value of every citizen’s vote. Efforts to change the system have continued throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
Nevertheless, Electoral College system reform efforts have met with limited success. Political parties have been reluctant to change a system that currently benefits them, and proposals for reform, such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or constitutional amendments for proportional allocation, have encountered substantial hurdles. But the case for reform remains compelling. Adopting a proportional system or moving to a national popular vote would address many of the current system’s deficiencies. A proportional approach, where electoral votes match a candidate’s share of the popular vote, would help ensure that every vote counts equally, regardless of state. Alternatively, a national popular vote would eliminate the Electoral College entirely, aligning the election outcome with the nationwide popular will.
Addressing the Electoral College also involves tackling the “contingent” election system, where if no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives selects the President. This system, denounced by figures ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Mitch McConnell, remains a potential source of crisis in closely contested elections.
The task of reforming the Electoral College is daunting. The Constitution’s rigorous amendment process, coupled with entrenched partisan interests, makes change difficult. However, historical patterns show that public sentiment has often favored reform, and partisan advantages shift over time. While reform may not be achievable before the upcoming November presidential election, the necessity and urgency of addressing this issue remain clear.
The current Electoral College system dampens voter engagement, distorts campaign strategies, and fails to reflect democratic values. As we look to the future of American democracy, it is essential to engage in a national conversation about how to create a more equitable and representative electoral process. Imagine a political landscape where every vote for President, in every state, truly counts, and where the campaign strategies and policy discussions reflect the interests of all Americans, not just those in a few swing states. Such a vision is not only desirable but necessary for a more functional and fair democracy.
Alex Keyssar is the Matthew W. Stirling, Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the author of Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (2020) and has collaborated with MEVC on its educational mission.
Elizabeth Cavanagh is the CEO/Chair of the Making Every Vote Count Foundation (MEVC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the proposition that all votes cast for President in every state should count equally.
