What is the Electoral College?

Defining the Electoral College 

While its name might suggest otherwise, the Electoral College is not a place for higher education. Rather, it refers to a voting process that is specific to the United States presidential and vice presidential elections. Since the country’s founding, and every four years thereafter, members of the Electoral College gather to vote for these heads of state. This runs contrary to a direct democratic system where the popular vote decides who wins the election. In fact, as explained in What You Need to Know About Voting—and Why,

Moreover, in this voting system, the winning candidate by popular vote in each state is awarded that state’s allotment of electoral votes. While the number of electoral votes is proportional to the size of a state’s population, it can happen that the Electoral College ends up electing a different candidate than the popular vote would indicate. In the 2016 election, for example, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump won the electoral vote. In the end, however, only the electoral vote decides the election. 

Thus, the existence of the Electoral College has significant implications for US politics, which, in turn, tends to impact the rest of the world. In this study guide, we will explore why a system that has the power to override the popular vote exists in the first place. We’ll also delve deeper into the structure of the Electoral College and how it has changed over the years. Plus, we’ll cover some of the main critiques of this system and conclude with key takeaways that will make it easier for you to follow the US presidential elections. 

Historical background

The Electoral College was born out of the US Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Founding Fathers—including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton—were grappling with the complexities of governing a diverse, fledgling nation. When it came to devising a fair and stable voting system, they were debating a couple of options. Some delegates at the convention favored the idea of instating a popular vote, but others contended that it would create unfair discrepancies between the larger, more populous states and the smaller ones. Instead, these delegates suggested that Congress—elected by constituents of each state—ought to be the ones to vote for the president. This was criticized because it left too much potential for corruption and cronyism in line with the interests of Congress, rather than with those of the people. 

In the end, the Electoral College was meant to serve as a compromise between the two camps and was enshrined in Article II of the US Constitution. Each state was given a number of electors proportional to their populations, with each elector representing one vote. According to The United States Constitution, 

The electors were meant to be educated individuals who could intervene to vote for the candidate they saw fit, for example, to thwart the rise of demagogues (political leaders who stoke the emotions and prejudices of the masses in order to gain votes). 

The structure of the Electoral College laid out in the US Constitution is rather brief. In fact, the document only includes a few paragraphs about how this system was supposed to work. It has been nearly two and a half centuries since the Electoral College was created, and a lot has happened since. The US now consists of 50 states and, as of November 2024, there will have been 60 presidential elections. There have been numerous amendments and tweaks to this process over the years as new scenarios arose. The following section provides a deep dive into the structure of the Electoral College and how it has changed since it was created.

Structure of, and changes to, the Electoral College

At its most basic, each state gets a number of electoral votes that corresponds roughly—but not always precisely—with its population size. One exception here is that all states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes regardless of size, so the smallest states can have voting power that is actually disproportionate to their population size. Another way of looking at it is that, 

Originally, there were a total of 535 votes for the taking, and the candidate who gained a simple majority of votes would be declared the winner. Today, there are 538 electoral votes, as Washington DC was given 3 votes in a 1961 constitutional amendment. As Sears mentions above, with the exceptions of Nebraska and Maine, most states follow a winner-takes-all policy. This means that the winner of the popular vote in that state gains all of its electoral votes.

In the case of a contingent election, where no candidate gets a majority of votes, the vote would move to the US Congress to decide. This happened three times in the early 19th century: 1801, 1825, and 1837. Furthermore, each elector was initially meant to cast two votes, and the runner-up would be the vice president. As of the passage of the 12th amendment in 1804, however, the electoral votes for president and vice president were split into two distinct categories. Still, in contemporary times, presidential candidates and their chosen vice presidential running mates are typically presented to voters together on the ballot.

As for the electors themselves, they are appointed based on each state’s particular legal procedures—though as per national rules, none may be holding political office. Within each state, 

In many cases, these electors are nominated by the candidates’ political parties directly, such as at their party conventions. In other cases, the electors are chosen on behalf of the candidate by voters in the party’s presidential primaries. In general, the electors are selected to ensure loyalty to the party or candidate that has nominated them. This is meant to minimize the prevalence of faithless actors, where the elector votes against party expectations. Once the popular vote in a given state is counted, the elector votes go to the slate of electors associated with the winning candidate and their party.

Implications of the Electoral College 

In the US electoral system, the electorate within a given state are technically voting for their desired slate of electors—rather than for the presidential candidate directly. This is by design. As Sears reminds us in American Government 101, the United States’ founding members “believed that a college of dispassionate citizens were better suited than the masses to select a president” (2016). Though faithless actors are uncommon, technically, the electors can decide to vote how they want once the time comes. Today, many states have guardrails in place—such as fines and other penalties—to discourage electors from acting against their expected loyalties. 

Moreover, as Sears also points out, under this electoral system of voting, most states follow the winner-takes-all policy regardless of margin. In practice, the majority of states are pretty much already decided based on precedent to give their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate (blue) or the Republican candidate (red). For example, California and Vermont are solid blue states. Meanwhile, West Virginia and Alabama are considered staunch red states. While these voting trends are not set in stone, this means that,

This handful of states are known as battlegrounds or “swing” states, which shift between red and blue from one election to the next. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia are all currently considered battleground states. 

All of this is to say that if you were to follow the national polls about who is currently projected to win the election, things can be misleading. The outlook for popular vote matters far less when you understand that it really depends on where voters are located and the breakdown of electoral college votes for each individual state. As mentioned at the start of this study guide, the popular vote doesn’t ultimately decide the election. In fact, in about 10% of elections, the Electoral College vote contradicts the overall popular vote, largely thanks to the distribution of votes across the swing states. 

Electoral College debates and critiques 

As you might have gathered thus far, the Electoral College shapes US politics in ways that are pretty contentious. There is much debate around the fact that the popular vote doesn’t decide the elections and that the race really boils down to just a handful of states. In this section, we’ll explore why some still fiercely advocate in favor of the Electoral College, followed by the major critiques leveraged against this system. 

Arguments in favor of the Electoral College

Rather similar to the Founding Fathers themselves, those who believe in the utility of the Electoral College argue that,

Essentially, the Electoral College acts as a stabilizing counterweight to the diversity and complexity of the United States electorate. It helps to maintain some level of evenness between different geographical regions and streamlines the voting process by breaking it down by states. In this way, it ensures that less populated states still matter in federal politics. In a country where states and their legislatures vary significantly, this preserves a level of federalism that may not be possible otherwise. Furthermore, without the Electoral College, the candidates’ campaign strategies would look very different. Because they need to win by state, particularly in swing states, they must run on a platform that appeals more broadly to people across the country.

Electoral College critiques

Despite the fact that it might offer a stabilizing force to federal politics in the United States, the Electoral College also has its flaws. Naturally, it inhibits the popular will of the people, as we have already seen. In about 1 out of every 10 elections, the electoral vote has contrasted with the popular vote. Two recent examples are the 2016 election where Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College, and the 2000 election when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in the electoral vote. What’s more, this was the case, in part, because enough electors acted as faithless actors in these elections. Specifically, as Lawrence Lessig describes in They Don’t Represent Us,

Thus, the Electoral College can have serious consequences for US politics and foreign policy, as things may have looked very different with an environmentalist president like Al Gore, who won the popular vote, in 2000. (For more on Gore’s environmentalism, see his work Earth in the Balance, 2013.) 

Moreover, even though it might push candidates to appeal to a broader coalition of voters, elections really boil down to who wins in the swing states, which can mean that constituents in more solidly red or blue states end up feeling like their votes don’t matter either way. In contemporary US politics, the Electoral College, particularly under the winner-takes-all policy, also helps entrench the bipartisan system, where votes either go to the Democrats or Republicans. For example, 

This makes it difficult for third-party alternatives to get very far in national politics. Especially as disgruntlement grows with the two-party system and polarization is at a high, the Electoral College serves as an impediment to finding a third way forward. (If you’d like to learn more about these elections, be sure to check out Campaigning for President 2016 (2017), edited by Dennis W. Johnson and Lara Brown, along with Clinton/Gore (2012) by Jeffrey J. Volle.)

Closing thoughts 

The Electoral College was created to counter the sheer range and diversity of interests and to mitigate the effects of sectarianism (staunch loyalties to opposing political factions) within the US electorate. Enshrined in the Constitution, it was intended as a stabilizing force between the whims of the people and the potential for corruption among elected officials. While perhaps imperfectly, it was ultimately designed to enable more proportional representation across the fifty states and streamline voting across them. Over the last two and a half centuries, it has been amended and changed in various ways to account for a rapidly expanding nation.

While its proponents argue that it is effective as a mechanism that balances the interests of smaller states and rural regions with those of larger metropolises and more populous areas, it certainly is not without its flaws. Namely, it subverts the popular vote, which begs questions about its legitimacy in a purportedly democratic society. This electoral system has also created a situation where the election really comes down to the same handful of swing states, which leads millions of voters in other states to experience a democratic deficit. Finally, due to the winner-takes-all policy used in most states, the Electoral College has retrenched the bipartisan system, making it much more difficult for third parties to break into national politics.

For those interested in following the US presidential elections, it is essential to understand the workings of the Electoral College. Namely, knowing how to read the national polls with nuance is key. Particularly when the election is projected to be close, polling information that breaks the race down by state is far more relevant. From there, you can calculate the number of votes the candidate will gain if they win in that state in order to identify who is really projected to win. When the race is tight, as it has been in a number of recent presidential elections, knowing how the electoral vote can differ from the popular vote invites a range of complexities and implications when assessing the outcome of a given election. 

Further reading on Perlego 

Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (2020) by Alexander Keyssar

The Hidden History of the War on Voting (2020) by Thom Hartmann

Electoral College Reform (2016) by Gary Bugh

Keeping the Compound Republic (2004) by Martha Derthick

Democracy and Dysfunction (2019) by Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin

Bibliography

England, T. (2020) Why We Must Defend the Electoral College. Encounter Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1377235/why-we-must-defend-the-electoral-college 

Gore, A. (2013) Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose. Routledge. Available at: 

https://www.perlego.com/book/1579925/earth-in-the-balance-forging-a-new-common-purpose 

Johnson, D. W. and Brown, L. (eds.) (2017) Campaigning for President 2016: Strategy and Tactics. Routledge. Available at: 

https://www.perlego.com/book/1517202/campaigning-for-president-2016-strategy-and-tactics 

Lessig, L. (2019) They Don't Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy. Dey Street Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1213188/they-dont-represent-us-reclaiming-our-democracy 

Sears, K. (2016) American Government 101. Adams Media. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/781137/american-government-101-from-the-continental-congress-to-the-iowa-caucus-everything-you-need-to-know-about-us-politics 

United States (1975) The United States Constitution. Perlego. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1727214/the-united-states-constitution 

Volle, J. J. (2012) Clinton/Gore: Victory from a Shadow Box. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: 

https://www.perlego.com/book/3507943/clintongore-victory-from-a-shadow-box 

Wehle, K. (2020) What You Need to Know About Voting–and Why. Harper Paperbacks. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1232481/what-you-need-to-know-about-votingand-why