As the 2024 election cycle ends, it is important to look at the Electoral College and how American votes really count. Every state has an electoral vote for every member of Congress the state has.  For every state, a statewide tally is used to count votes, where the winner of the state also wins all of the electoral votes for the state. 

     There has long been debate over the Electoral College and whether it is an accurate and fair way to determine elections compared to the popular vote. As we have seen in cases such as 2016, a candidate can win the popular vote but lose the election due to electoral votes. Some believe that the Electoral College is fairer than a popular vote, as it keeps states with a dense population, such as California and New York, from controlling the election results. However, others argue that it is unfair for the majority of the United States population to agree on a presidential candidate and still have that candidate lose the election.

     While both sides have some merit, what the majority of the population wants is ultimately what is most important. While the Electoral College does give states with lower populations, such as Wyoming and Montana, a larger say in elections, negating the popular vote feels like a way to water down citizen’s voices. For example, one electoral vote in Wyoming represents about 195,000 people, but in California, the same electoral vote represents about 712,000 people. When put into this perspective, the Electoral College has given smaller states an unfair advantage. When comparing the number of electoral votes to state population, the most underrepresented states are the largest, including Texas, California, Florida, and New York, and the smaller states are often the most represented, including Wyoming, Montana, and Rhode Island. This misrepresentation of citizens based on the state they reside in is unfair, as it virtually makes a section of the U.S. population’s votes pointless.

     There is an entirely separate issue with the Electoral College negating votes in a state that does not coincide with the candidate who wins the states. Democratic votes in Arkansas are represented just as little as Republican votes in California. While yes, these votes still count to the popular vote and count in the long run, for states such as Arkansas, California, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas, votes that go against how the state consistently votes in elections are inherently null. This problem affects swing states as well, as one candidate takes the entirety of a state’s electoral votes. This means in swing states, where candidates could win the state by small margins, electoral votes leave the state’s votes even more misrepresented. By switching to a popular vote, there would be a more accurate representation of the U.S. population, and swing states such as Pennsylvania would be less influential in an election. By popular vote, every person’s vote carries the same amount of weight. That, in the end, is the fairest way to run an election.

     It is important to note that the electoral vote is ratified in the U.S. Constitution, as it was a compromise between the election of a president by Congress and an election by popular vote. So, to change the current system, Congress would have to pass a Constitutional amendment. This seems unlikely to happen in either the near or far future, even if citizens call for change. The Electoral College has too much potential to support either party in an election to carry a win for Congress to decide to change the system, regardless of how American citizens feel.