In the recent 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral College with “the second-closest (popular vote margin) since 1968 and still tightening,” according to NPR News. This is a contrast to 2016 when he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2.9 million votes.
The popular vote also went to the losing candidate (Democrat Al Gore) in 2000 a half million votes. These are among recent elections that have ignited fierce debate over the effectiveness and fairness of the Electoral College. While the majority of the public calls for a systematic change of the electoral process, it’s still met with many challenges such as having to amend the Constitution that makes it politically difficult to do.
The Electoral College was created in the early years of the United States, and at the time, it served practical purposes — the general population wasn’t well educated, the smaller states wanted to have a larger voice in elections and it was a compromise to keep the slave-holding southern states to stay in the union. So the Electoral College allowed a representative group of electors, informed about both national issues and their state’s interests, to make the final decision.
Over time, this system has increasingly revealed its flaws. In several recent elections, candidates may have won the Electoral College without winning the national popular vote, leading to a situation where a president can take office without the majority of public support. One of the biggest issues today is that the Electoral College gives disproportionate influence to so-called swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; these are states that could be won by either party in any presidential election. The realities of the Electoral College force almost all candidates’ attention and resources on these few competitive states — or even more extremely, a few counties — that can decide the election outcome.
As a result, voters in non-swing states like California are simply neglected because their vote outcome is virtually guaranteed. It also leaves many feeling disillusioned and frustrated for the fate of the country to be defined by only six or seven states every four years. This dynamic runs counter to the original purpose of the Electoral College , which was to provide fair representation.
Additionally, the winner-take-all system in most states means that even if a candidate narrowly wins a state, they receive all of its electoral votes, leaving voters who supported the other candidate completely unrepresented. This structure has led to “wasted” votes phenomenon, where a substantial portion of the population feels their voices don’t count in the final result, lowering voter motivation and turnout.
There are several alternatives to the Electoral College to better align with today’s values of democratic representation. The best would, of course, be a direct popular vote in which the candidate with the most votes across the country. This method would ensure that each vote counts equally; however, some argue it could disadvantage less-populated regions, as campaigns might focus solely on larger population areas, and it is also considered logistically much harder to recount.
Another reform proposal is the district plan, which is already used by Maine and Nebraska. This plan awards electoral votes based on the outcome in each congressional district, which are smaller divisions within a state. While this might offer more regional representation, it could lead to gerrymandering, which means when parties could manipulate district boundaries to gain electoral advantages.
The National Bonus Plan is, in my opinion, the most promising alternative that combines aspects of the current system with a new feature: adding a “bonus” of extra electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Under this system, 102 extra votes (two for each state and D.C.) would go to the candidate who won the popular vote nationwide.
Another significant advantage of this system compared to the above alternatives is that the National Bonus Plan does not require an amendment to the Constitution, saving a great amount of time that would otherwise be required for Congress to debate and pass any legislation. This system keeps the structure of the nationwide Electoral College but prevents the possibility that a candidate could win the presidency without also winning the popular vote.
The National Bonus Plan provides a middle ground, giving the popular vote more weight without fully dismantling the existing Electoral College framework. By making it highly likely that the popular vote winner becomes president, the National Bonus Plan respects both regional representation and the democratic principle of majority rule. It’s a balanced reform that could resolve many of the current election’s problems and align the result more closely with the will of the people while preserving fair representation across states.
