Argument in Favor vs. Against the Electoral College 

One of the main arguments favoring the Electoral College is that it prevents larger states from dominating the presidential  election by giving smaller states a voice in national elections. While voters in smaller states may have a slight advantage over voters in larger states, the Electoral College assures urban populations do not entirely drown out rural voices (National Archives, 2020). 

The Electoral College ensures that candidates must attempt to attract voters in various regions instead of only focusing on large cities. A pure popular vote system would allow presidential candidates to win the presidency by only campaigning in large cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The Electoral College ensures they consider suburban and rural voters as well (Foley, 2017).

If the national popular vote were to decide election outcomes, a close election would call for a recount in all 50 states, delaying results and creating instability. The 2000 presidential election called for a recount in Florida, but had the entire nation needed a recount, the outcome of the election could have been delayed for several months (National Archives, 2020). 

The Electoral College typically produces clear results, which prevents the need for runoff elections. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 with 304 electoral votes despite losing the popular vote. Without the Electoral College, the election would have possibly been contested for months due to how close the popular vote was (Foley, 2017).

One of the main arguments against the Electoral College is that it can lead to an unrepresentative result in which the candidate who won the popular vote can lose the election. Indeed, the Electoral College occasionally selects a winner who has not won the popular vote (as seen in 2000 and 2016), but this is an uncommon occurrence and not necessarily an indication of an unjust system. Far more often, the system represents the voice of the people, and the exceptions do not detract from the overall success of the system (National Archives, 2020).

People also believe smaller states have a more significant influence on a per-capita basis than larger states due to the Electoral College. Smaller states like Wyoming do have a higher number of electoral votes, which more accurately reflects their size. However, the variation is often minimal and does not influence the election outcome much (National Archives, 2020).

Another argument is that the Electoral College makes the presidential election focus too intensely on swing states and neglects voters in primarily red or blue states. It is true that more attention is given to swing states like Pennsylvania or Florida, but this is a result of their competitiveness. While other states are not as well-covered, this focus on swing states can be viewed as a reflection of the natural way that elections are held. Citizens in non-swing states can still influence national discussion (National Archives, 2020).   

Some people believe that the Electoral College is outdated and does not adhere to modern-day democratic ideals. The Electoral College was designed in the late 18th century, keeping the democratic ideals of the time in mind. Although it seems to many to be outdated, it still balances power distribution between states. Several other democratic nations have opted for a direct popular vote. However, the Electoral College still maintains the federal system of government that advocates for the voice of all states (National Popular Vote, 2021).