Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
This uniquely American system for choosing the president isn’t a relic of the past — it’s a cornerstone of American democracy and essential for preserving a balanced, unified, and representative nation.
With the presidential election finally here, the debate over the Electoral College once again takes center stage. Increasingly, many Americans view this system as outdated, with calls to replace it echoing louder with each election cycle. Some claim that the Electoral College skews representation, disregards the national popular vote, and ultimately denies voters an equal voice.
Others insist it is essential for maintaining the republic and ensuring fair representation across all states, not just the most populous ones.
In this climate, the conversation often misses a crucial element: The Electoral College was not designed as a mere compromise. Rather, it is a safeguard against the very dangers of unbalanced, majority-driven rule that the Founders so carefully sought to prevent.
Today, fewer Americans understand why the Electoral College was established or the principles behind it. With many pushing to discard this system in favor of a direct popular vote, we face a pivotal question: Do we continue to honor a system that encourages national unity and fair representation, or do we embrace a model that could radically alter the balance of power in favor of urban centers and populous regions? This question isn’t trivial. The answer could fundamentally change the nature of presidential elections and, by extension, the very structure of our democratic republic..
The Electoral College, enshrined in the 12th Amendment, remains a crucial institution in preserving a fair, representative, and balanced republic where every state’s voice counts, no matter its size. Established to protect against tyranny of the majority and to maintain a stable union, the Electoral College ensures that presidential candidates seek broad, national support rather than catering only to populous regions.
As the framers envisioned, the system reflects the diverse interests of a sprawling nation, balancing power across states and ensuring that even the smallest states hold sway. Far from being a historic relic, the Electoral College safeguards against centralized, unchecked power, preserving the principles of federalism and equality that lie at the heart of the American republic.
Established by the U.S. Constitution in 1787, the Electoral College is the system for electing the president and vice president. Instead of relying solely on the national popular vote, it assigns each state a specific number of “electors,” who then cast the official votes for president. Each state’s number of electors equals its representation in Congress (the number of its senators and representatives). California, for example, has 54 votes, while Wyoming has just 3. Currently, there are 538 electors, meaning a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes to win.
When citizens vote in presidential elections, they’re actually voting for their state’s electors. Most states use a “winner-takes-all” system, awarding all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes in that state. However, Maine and Nebraska use a proportional system, splitting their electoral votes based on the distribution of popular votes in the state.
What modern Americans might not realize is, without the Great Compromise of 1787, which in part helped establish the Electoral College, the Constitution may have never been ratified.
It’s important to remember that, while years of increasing centralized power in the federal government has erased much of the states’ sovereignty, the United States was not founded as one homogenous entity. The original colonies saw themselves as individual states coming together for their collective benefit. This was the reason for the Constitution’s forerunner, the Articles of Confederation, which established the states as independent and sovereign entities loosely aligned by a much weaker federal government.
When the Constitution was being debated, large states like Virginia and small states like New Jersey had fierce disagreements about how the federal government would be run. For example, Virgnia wanted representation in the Legislative Branch to be determined by population. New Jersey wanted representation to be equal. The Great Compromise created a bicameral legislature where the House of Representatives was determined by population and the Senate represented equally, with each state receiving two senators.
States like New Jersey never would have ratified the Constitution without the Great Compromise because it would have meant giving up their sovereignty to states like Virginia. This holds true today. States with smaller geographic areas like Delaware or that are predominantly rural like North Dakota, using their land for agriculture and natural resources rather than building large cities, would be ruled by the will of California.
One cannot simply think of the U.S. population as Americans — one must also think of them as, for example, New Yorkers or Alabamians. Any person who has ever traveled to New York City and then traveled through Alabama could tell you that the values, needs, ways of life, and perspectives in those states are very different.
In 1787, each state was fighting for its own people, and the only way to create a nation that worked for everyone was through compromise.
This included the Electoral College, which served as a middle ground between those who wanted Congress to select the president and those who advocated for direct popular voting. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 68 that the system was intended to ensure that “the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
He believed the Electoral College would encourage careful selection by “a small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass,” who were best equipped to understand the complexities of governance.
James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” also expressed concerns about “the tyranny of the majority.” He feared that large, populous states would dominate elections, thus marginalizing smaller states and rural areas. Madison’s experiences with factionalism in state governments made him wary of any system that might allow a simple majority to override the interests of smaller communities. The Electoral College was created to prevent any single faction or region from having undue influence over the election outcome, protecting both large and small states’ voices.
In recent years, there has been a growing movement to replace the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. Critics argue that the Electoral College is outdated and that it distorts election results, disproportionately favoring smaller states. They point to elections in which candidates won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote, such as in 2000 and 2016, as evidence of the system’s shortcomings.
Advocates for abolishing the Electoral College argue that it undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” and that a direct national popular vote would be a fairer way to determine the presidency.
Eliminating the Electoral College would have significant and potentially disastrous consequences for the United States. Without it, the influence of less-populated states would likely diminish, as candidates would focus on highly-populated urban centers where they could secure the largest number of votes with minimal travel. This shift would effectively silence the voices of rural and smaller states, undermining the diverse representation that the Founders sought to protect.
By requiring candidates to win state-based support rather than solely the popular vote, the Electoral College encourages coalition-building and helps moderate extreme regional factions.
Some analysts argue that eliminating the Electoral College would increase political polarization, as candidates would cater primarily to large urban areas because rural and less-populated regions would add little to their total vote counts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 80 percent of the population now lives in urban areas. Without the Electoral College, these densely populated areas could easily overshadow and quash the preferences of smaller, more rural states.
The movement towards a popular vote is gaining momentum due to the shifting population dynamics. According to a Pew Research survey, more than 6 in 10 Americans (63 percent) would prefer to see the winner of the presidential election as the person who wins the most votes nationally. This data reflects the public’s lack of understanding as to the purpose of the Electoral College’s role in preserving a balanced, representative democracy.
The Electoral College is more than just an election tool; it’s a fundamental part of the Founders’ vision of balanced government.
As the nation heads to the polls tomorrow, understanding the purpose and value of the Electoral College is essential. Abandoning it in favor of a popular vote could lead to increased division, marginalizing states that don’t have large urban centers, and intensifying the already stark political divides. The Electoral College remains a vital safeguard against centralized, unchecked power, strengthening the principles of a republic that values every state’s voice, no matter its size or character.
In the end, the Electoral College is a testament to the wisdom of America’s Founders. It’s a system designed to balance power, prevent majority rule and tyranny, and promote unity across a diverse nation. As we go out to vote for the next president of the United States, it’s worth remembering why this institution was established and what we risk losing if it’s abandoned. The Electoral College isn’t just a relic of the past—it’s a cornerstone of American democracy, essential for preserving a balanced, unified, and representative nation.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
