The Electoral College as it currently exists is a historical accident, not the product of careful thought by our founders about the justifications modern conservatives give for it. It exists because it was a method of electing a national leader at a time when states had highly varied electorates and no desire to create a uniform directly-elected system.
As others have said, this system stopped making since by the 1830s, or the 1870s at the latest. By that time there was at least theoretically universal male suffrage and popular votes for electors in every state. It is a relic of a bygone era where the franchise was limited and differentiated both from state to state, and even from office to office within a state’s government. It is every bit as antiquated as state privy councils, legislative selection of governors, and public voice-voting.
I have never heard any reasoning for the continued existence of the Electoral College that wasn’t a blatant post-hoc rationalization. The President should be elected by nationwide popular vote with either a ranked choice vote, or two-round system.
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. In the past, when losing the popular vote but winning the EC was rare, and when it did happen, it was by less than 1 million votes, fine.
But when you have a country electing a president who received more than 3 million less votes than their opponent, that's a problem.
Unfortunately, reform will never happen because the Republican Party knows its policies do not play well nationwide, and they need to rely on the EC and gerrymandering congressional districts to remain in power. It explains why states like North Carolina, which vote 50/50 in the popular vote has a GOP super majority in their state legislature, etc.
Poll
