Roots of Undermining Democracy and the Electoral College

By an 2ndrevolution.org contributor

The Electoral College has become a focal point of controversy in American politics, a mechanism that can—and has—allowed presidential candidates to ascend to the White House despite losing the popular vote. While it is often portrayed as a compromise meant to balance power between populous and less populous states, the true reasons behind its establishment and continued use are more rooted in maintaining control and holding on to power. The system’s current impact on American democracy—from its disproportionate representation in the Senate to the manipulation of state boundaries—highlights both deliberate design choices and lingering structural inequities that continue to shape the political landscape.

The Genesis of the Electoral College: A Mechanism for Control

The origins of the Electoral College can be traced back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where framers debated how to balance power between different factions. The decision to create an Electoral College was influenced by a desire to protect the interests of the ruling elite while avoiding what some delegates feared would be the chaos of a direct popular vote. The system was seen as a compromise between those who wanted Congress to choose the president and those who preferred a direct vote by the people. Crucially, it was also a nod to the interests of slaveholding states.

Among the founding fathers, there was no consensus on how the president should be elected. Alexander Hamilton and others feared that the masses were too easily swayed by demagogues, and argued that an intermediary body of well-informed electors would ensure the selection of a qualified president. The Electoral College was intended to act as a buffer, a mechanism to prevent direct democracy from going awry. James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” had reservations about the dangers of direct popular election but was also wary of giving Congress the power to elect the president, fearing it would upset the balance of power between the branches of government.

Meanwhile, James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris were among the most vocal advocates for a direct popular vote. Wilson believed that the legitimacy of the presidency should rest upon the will of the people, advocating for a direct system that would represent the popular sentiment across the nation. However, their arguments ultimately lost to fears about the concentration of power, the potential for factionalism, and the delicate balance between large and small states.

The Southern states also played a key role in the decision to adopt the Electoral College. They feared that a direct popular vote would disadvantage them due to their lower number of eligible voters compared to the more populous Northern states. The infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, played into the Electoral College’s design by inflating the South’s influence without extending democratic rights to the enslaved population. Thus, from its inception, the Electoral College was as much about preserving power structures as it was about creating a functional democracy.

Electoral College vs. Popular Vote: Historical Instances of Divergence

Throughout American history, the Electoral College has delivered outcomes that diverged from the popular vote, often leading to debates about its democratic legitimacy. There have been five presidential elections where the candidate who won the popular vote ultimately lost the presidency due to the Electoral College:

1. 1824: The first instance occurred in the election of John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson. Jackson won the popular vote, but no candidate secured a majority in the Electoral College. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which selected Adams in what Jackson’s supporters decried as a “corrupt bargain.”
2. 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes triumphed over Samuel J. Tilden despite losing the popular vote. Tilden won a majority of the popular vote and had more electoral votes initially, but disputed results in several states led to a compromise that awarded the presidency to Hayes, effectively ending Reconstruction in the South.
3. 1888: Benjamin Harrison defeated incumbent Grover Cleveland while losing the popular vote. Cleveland received more votes nationally, but Harrison secured key states and thus the necessary electoral votes to win.
4. 2000: The contested election between George W. Bush and Al Gore remains one of the most infamous examples. Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, but a narrow win in Florida, ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, awarded Bush the presidency with 271 electoral votes.
5. 2016: Hillary Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but Trump won key swing states by razor-thin margins, securing 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227. This outcome reignited debates about the Electoral College’s role in undermining the democratic will of the majority.

The Power Disparity in the Senate: California vs. Wyoming

The disproportionate influence granted by the Electoral College extends beyond presidential elections and is also reflected in the makeup of the U.S. Senate. The Constitution guarantees that each state, regardless of population, has two senators. This means that highly populous states like California, with nearly 40 million residents, have the same number of senators as Wyoming, with a population of just over 500,000.

The result is that a voter in Wyoming has vastly more influence per capita in the Senate than a voter in California. The allocation of Senate seats, combined with the Electoral College, gives undue weight to less populous states, often tilting political power in favor of rural areas and ensuring that a minority of the population can wield considerable influence over legislation and judicial appointments. This disparity contributes to a system where the interests of a small minority can outweigh those of the majority, exacerbating polarization and contributing to gridlock in Washington.

The Division of the Dakotas: Adding Senate Seats by Design

The issue of disproportionate representation was further amplified by the decision to divide the Dakota Territory into two separate states—North Dakota and South Dakota—in 1889. The division was not driven by geographical necessity or distinct cultural differences but rather by political calculation. The Republican Party, dominant at the time, sought to ensure additional representation in the Senate by creating four Senate seats instead of two. By splitting the territory, Republicans effectively guaranteed themselves more influence in Congress, creating a long-lasting impact on the balance of power in the Senate.

The manipulation of state boundaries for political gain has contributed to the structural imbalance that still exists today. North and South Dakota, with their small populations, have four senators between them—equivalent to California and New York combined, despite having a fraction of their population. This strategic division was a deliberate move to consolidate power, ensuring that less populous and more rural areas would have a disproportionate voice in national governance.

The Consequences for Modern Democracy

The implications of the Electoral College and the Senate’s structure for American democracy are profound. The system’s design ensures that presidential candidates can win by focusing on a small number of key battleground states while ignoring much of the rest of the country. In both 2016 and 2020, the outcomes of the elections were determined by a few swing states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia—where a small number of votes ultimately tipped the balance.

The 2020 election underscores the fragility of the Electoral College system. Despite winning the popular vote by over 7 million votes, Biden’s victory hinged on narrow margins in a few key states. Had approximately 43,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin flipped, Donald Trump would have secured a second term. This reality highlights how a candidate can lose the popular vote by millions yet still win the presidency, creating a situation where the outcome is determined by the distribution of voters rather than the will of the majority.

The disproportionate power given to less populous states also affects the legislative agenda. The Senate, where small states like Wyoming and the Dakotas wield influence equal to populous states, often acts as a brake on policies that have widespread popular support but are opposed by a minority of senators representing a small portion of the population. This structural imbalance has allowed a minority of voters to effectively control the direction of the country, particularly on issues like climate policy, healthcare, and gun control.

Resistance to Change

Efforts to reform the Electoral College—such as through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)—have gained some traction, but significant challenges remain. The NPVIC seeks to ensure that the candidate who wins the national popular vote also wins the presidency by having states agree to allocate their electoral votes accordingly. However, the compact will only take effect once states representing at least 270 electoral votes have joined, a threshold that has yet to be reached. Many swing and smaller states have refused to participate, recognizing that the current system gives them an outsized role in deciding the presidency.

The resistance to change is also driven by political self-interest. The Republican Party, in particular, has benefited from the Electoral College’s structure in recent elections, as its voter base is more geographically distributed across rural areas and less populous states. The system allows Republicans to remain competitive nationally, even if they lose the popular vote. As long as this imbalance benefits one of the major parties, meaningful reform is unlikely.

Minority Rule and Its Implications

The structural flaws in the Electoral College and the Senate lead to minority rule, where the policy direction of the country is dictated by a relatively small portion of the electorate. This minority rule is evident not just in presidential elections, but also in the Senate, where less populous states can block legislation that is supported by the majority of Americans. Issues like gun control, **…healthcare, and climate policy are often areas where popular opinion diverges sharply from what is enacted by a Congress disproportionately influenced by rural, less populous states.

The Senate further amplifies this imbalance, as senators from smaller, rural states have the same legislative power as those from populous states, regardless of the number of people they represent. This system allows a minority of voters to effectively stall or control legislation, even when the majority of Americans support change. For instance, polling data shows that a majority of Americans support expanded background checks for firearms and action on climate change, but these initiatives often stall in the Senate, blocked by senators from smaller states representing a minority of the population. This minority rule is a direct consequence of the system set up to balance power across states, but in practice, it leads to a lack of responsiveness to the actual majority will of the populace.

The concentration of power in a few battleground states further underscores this point. Presidential campaigns focus heavily on these states, tailoring their messages and policy priorities to the interests of a small number of voters in swing areas. This has led to issues that are of national importance being sidelined in favor of those that resonate specifically in states like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin. This approach further distances the American electoral process from the ideal of equal representation, focusing attention and resources on a few influential regions rather than the country as a whole.

Why the System Will Not Change

Despite widespread acknowledgment of the shortcomings of the Electoral College and Senate structure, meaningful change is unlikely. The Electoral College is embedded in the U.S. Constitution, and altering it would require a constitutional amendment—something that necessitates a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states. Smaller states that benefit from the current system have little incentive to support changes that would diminish their influence, effectively ensuring that any attempt at reform will be blocked.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) offers a potential workaround by having states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but this compact will only take effect once states totaling 270 electoral votes have signed on. Currently, this threshold has not been reached, and many key swing and small states have resisted joining, recognizing the advantage the current system gives them. The political will for change is further weakened by partisan interests; as the Republican Party has benefited from the existing system in recent elections, they are unlikely to support reforms that would erode their competitiveness in national elections.

There is also a broader issue of entrenched interests. Many of the institutions and power structures that influence American governance—such as political parties, powerful lobby groups, and long-standing state institutions—have adapted to and benefited from the current setup. Altering the system would require not only a legal overhaul but also a fundamental shift in the way power is distributed within American politics. Such a shift is highly improbable without a significant public demand for change and a willingness to challenge the foundational myths of American democracy.

The Electoral College and the structure of the U.S. Senate are not neutral mechanisms of representation but deliberate constructs designed to balance power in ways that often undermine democratic ideals. From the manipulation of state boundaries to create additional Senate seats to the disproportionate influence of less populous states, the American political system is built on structural inequalities that skew representation. The result is a democracy where a candidate can win millions more votes yet lose the presidency, and where a small number of voters in a few key states hold the power to determine national outcomes.

As long as these systems remain in place, the United States will continue to face the risk of electoral outcomes that do not reflect the popular will. The imbalance in representation, both in the Electoral College and in the Senate, ensures that a minority of voters can wield significant influence, shaping the nation’s policies and priorities. The challenge for American democracy is whether it can address these historical inequities or whether it will continue to allow the vestiges of the past to dictate its future. In the absence of a serious reckoning, the current system will continue to favor minority rule, where a disproportionately small portion of the electorate determines the direction of the country, often at the expense of the will of the majority.