A Very “Unpopular” Argument: The Left Case for the Electoral College

• In Event: The Electoral College: New Theoretical and Empirical Thinking

Abstract

Critics of the Electoral College have argued that it is an elitist institutions that no longer serves the needs of contemporary American politics. Citing the potential for discrepancies from the popular vote, some have even argued that it threatens the vitality of democracy. These perspectives, however, take a very narrow view of democratic theory, and fail to account for the contemporary demographic shifts that have changed the significance of the Electoral College. In this paper, I argue that the Electoral College continues to protect minority interests in presidential elections, though these minorities are quite different from those envisioned by the founders. Empirically, I show that the political geography of the electorate would leave underrepresented minorities more vulnerable if the Electoral College were abolished. In addition, abolishing the Electoral College would have numerous downstream effects that are often not acknowledged by its detractors. Indeed proponents of the popular vote as the sole mechanism of choosing the executive underestimate the dangers it poses, especially in times of populist mobilization. While there may be institutional arrangements that would serve American democracy better than the Electoral College, we should wary of any that rely purely on a popular vote. I conclude with suggestions of institutional fixes that can address some of the shortcomings of voting equity in the United States.

Author

• Amel F. Ahmed, University of Massachusetts, Amherst