Could the Electoral College Become Obsolete?

to the winner of the national Popular Vote. If enough states join, it could spell the end of the Electoral College, a temporary body of state appointed electors who are ultimately responsible for choosing the president of the United States. The Electoral College was created by the Founding fathers as a way of checking the raw power of the people and giving a leg up to small states, but it also makes it possible for the winner of the popular vote

to actually lose the presidential election. That very thing has happened five times in American history, most recently with the election of Donald Trump, who won the electoral vote by a broad margin and six to thirty two, but lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by more than two

point eight million ballots. In the year two thousand, the closest presidential election in US history, George W. Bush narrowly won the White House with two hundred and seventy one electoral votes while receiving five hundred and forty three thousand, eight hundred and ninety five fewer popular votes than his opponent,

Al Gore. The electoral college is generally unpopular. A May twenty nineteen poll found fifty three percent of Americans think it should be abolished, and according to a twenty nineteen report by the Congressional Research Service, there have been seven hundred different proposals floated in Congress that would reform or repeal the electoral College, which is enshrined in Article two

of the Constitution and also in the twelfth Amendment. But despite centuries of opposition, the electoral College is alive in kicking because amending the Constitution or repealing and existing amendment is a huge political undertaking that requires supermajorities in Congress plus the president's signature. That's why electoral college critics are excited about a new approach that uses the Constitution's own language to bring power back to the popular vote, and

it's getting traction. The National Popular Vote Plan doesn't require a constitutional amendment because it doesn't get rid of the electoral College. Supporters believe it brings parity back to the voting process, every vote would count, while opponents claim that any state sponsored attempt to mess with federal elections is

by its very nature unconstitutional. We spoke with John Coza, the chair of National Popular Vote Incorporated, a nonprofit organization that's been lobbying states to join the movement since two thousand and six. Cosa's biggest gripe with the electoral College has nothing to do with what the Constitution says, but

with state winner take all laws. These laws, which are on the books in forty eight states plus Washington, d c. Hand over all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes at the state level. Cosa said, if you lose Florida by half a percent, you get nothing, and that's exactly what happened to Gore in two thousand plus. If you live in a state that constantly gives all of its electoral votes to the political party you're opposed to, you start to feel like

your vote doesn't even count. A troubling side effect of the winner take all system is that presidential candidates have learned to campaign exclusively in so called battleground states, where both presidential candidates stand a good chance of winning. It makes perfect mathematical and financial sense. Don't waste time and states that are guaranteed to go blue or red, but

go all in on the purple ones. As a result, says Cosa, in the twelve election, a hundred percent of campaign events and spending were focused on just twelve states. Incent of events in spending occurred in those same twelve states, and that can affect how and where government policy is made. For example, manufacturers in a battleground state like Ohio get a lot more attention from White House policymakers than farmers in a solid red state like Idaho. This hasn't always

been the case. A. Cosa said that in nine seen sixty John F. Kennedy campaigned in thirty five states and his opponent, Richard Nixon, visited all fifty. Okay, but let's go back to the foundation of all of this. What it says in the Constitution about the electoral vote, the National Popular Vote movement Hinges on a clause contained an

article to Section one. Each state hill appoint in such a manner as legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in Congress. According to National Popular Vote supporters, the Constitution requires the use of electors to choose the president, but it gives states the right to pick those electors in such a manner as they see fit. And that's exactly what fifteen states

and Washington d C. Have done. They've chosen to pledge all of their electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of their state level popular vote. Cosa explained, the Constitution sets up the electoral college, but doesn't say how these electors get to the electoral College. It leaves it totally up to the states instant only. This is how forty eight states plus DC ended up with a

winner take all system in the first place. The winner take all idea isn't anywhere in the Constitution, explains Kosa. States past legislation one by one as majority politicians tried to consolidate power in the decades preceding the Civil War. Only Nebraska and Maine divvy up their electoral votes by congressional districts. Critics of the National Popular Vote movement argue that even if the interstate compact isn't expressly unconstitutional, it's

at least anti constitutional. They point to the fact that the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a deliberate move away from direct democracy. By giving ultimate power over selecting the president to a representative body chosen by the states, it avoided the threat of unchecked majorityarianism. In the words of the Congressional Research Service report, the National Popular Vote plan and opponents say would undermine the intent of the

Founding Fathers by bringing back majority rule. Other criticisms of the National Popular Vote proposal are that it would incur endless state recounts because so much will be writing on every single vote nationwide, not just in battleground states. Also that it would disadvantage smaller states over larger ones, and further that it would encourage multiparty elections in which a candidate could win the presidency with a plurality of votes

but not a majority. In the extensive Answering Myths section of the National Popular Vote website, the organization addresses these criticisms and many more, generally arguing that the National Popular Vote scheme won't be any worse than what we have now and has the potential to function far better. For example, state recounts are already a pain, and fifteen American presidents have already won the White House without an absolute majority

that's more than of the popular vote. Further, most of these smaller states are currently ignored during campaign season because they aren't battlegrounds. If you've paid attention on US election night, you know that two d and seven is the magic number of electoral College votes needed to win the presidency. It's also the same number of electoral College votes required

to make National Popular Vote a reality. The only way for the Cooperative Interstates scheme to work is if all of their pooled electoral votes add up to a majority. As of this recording, National Popular Vote legislation has passed in states with a total of a hundred and ninety six electoral votes, which is seventy four shy of the goal.

Maine could be the next to add its four humble electoral votes, but it will take some bigger states to sign on, many of which voted for Trump, who once again stands to benefit from the electoral College in the election. While the vast majority of states who have signed on to the National Popular Vote have been Democratic strongholds, Colorado became the first purple state to join in May, could more follow we'll keep you updated. Today's episode was written

by Dave Brus and produced by Tyler Clang. Brain Stuff is a production of iHeart Radios How Stuff Works. For more in this and lots of other political topics, visit our home planet, how stuff Works dot com. And for more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.