Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?

Recommend (2) Comments (1)

Historically speaking, the 2000 election was unusual. Both nationwide popular vote totals and electoral vote margins were slim. Most presidential elections have not been close in the Electoral College, even when popular vote totals have been. The Electoral College system, when combined with the winner-take-all rule, tends to magnify the margin of victory, giving the victor a certain and demonstrable election outcome.

For instance, John Kennedy won only 49.7 percent of the popular vote in the 1960 election, but he won 56.4 percent of the electoral vote. Eight years later, this magnification effect worked in favor of Nixon. He won the popular vote by less than one percent, but he won 55.9 percent of the electoral vote. The presidential elections since 1804 (the year that the 12th Amendment was passed) have generally seen wide margins of victory in the Electoral College. This magnification effect can work to solidify the country behind the new President by bestowing an aura of legitimacy.

These consistently wide margins of victory in the Electoral College have come about despite the fact that the margin between the top two candidates in the popular vote was less than ten percent in fifteen of the twenty-seven elections held since 1900. This margin exceeded twenty percent only five times since 1900. Thus, a direct popular election would not grant certainty nearly as often. Close popular votes could easily result in demands for recounts on a national scale. America rarely has close Electoral College votes; it does, however, have close popular votes fairly consistently. Do Americans really want a presidential election system that could result in hotly contested recounts once every several elections?

A direct popular election would compound matters in a second manner because of the likelihood that it would cause presidential elections to devolve into multi-candidate races. As more candidates enter presidential races, individual votes will be divided among an ever-increasing number of candidates. The result will be lower vote totals per candidate and an increased likelihood that two or more candidates will have close popular vote totals. Recounts could be held simply to determine who is entering the run-off; then they could be held again to determine who won the run-off. Certain, immediate election outcomes under this scenario will be a thing of the past. The value of such certainty can’t be emphasized enough, particularly when the country faces challenges abroad. Americans should know the name of their commander-in-chief—as should her enemies.