The electoral college has become increasingly contested, as there have been two recent instances of the candidate who received less popular votes still winning the election (2000 and 2016). However, the Electoral College is a fundamental part of our nation’s Representative Democracy. In fact, the outlining of the Electoral College is a major contribution to the Constitution, itself. It has long served as a balancing tool between interests of large and small states, alike, ensuring that larger populations do not have a greater say, and allows for the diverse beliefs and values held across individual states to be important factors in candidates’ campaign strategies and their respective platforms. However, times have changed, and it would be ignorant to say that change is not necessary. According to the US Census Bureau, when the constitution was written, the US had a population of 3,929,214 people, across 13 states, and each representative had roughly 34,000 constituents. Now, the US is home to about 333,300,000 people, and each member has 761,169 constituents. This is due to the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 that capped the number of members in the House at 435. This has had damaging effects on the equality of our elections, with individuals in smaller states casting single votes worth several votes in a larger, more populous state. So, I propose that instead of overhauling our entire electoral system, we expand the number of votes in the electoral college, allowing for there to be an equal number of constituents per electoral vote. Perhaps even expanding the House of Representatives itself would be beneficial, as it would magnify the voice of local communities across the nation. A reformed Electoral College would continue to protect small state beliefs from large state ideology, but with more closely aligned representation. This will ensure small and large states have equal influence in our elections, while still preserving the core principles of federalism our nation was built on.
