The US election is not about popularity alone
Published: 03:11 PM,Nov 03,2024 | EDITED : 07:11 PM,Nov 03,2024
Within the next few days, the winner of the US presidential election will be announced. Vice-President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump are the contending candidates, and either one will become the 47th president in the 60th quadrennial election. Most people might assume that the winner would simply be the more popular candidate. However, the presidential system is not solely about popularity.
There have been instances when a candidate won the popular vote but did not win the election. George Bush Jr’s victory over Al Gore in 2000 and President Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton in 2016 are recent examples of candidates winning the popular vote but losing in the electoral college.
The United States Constitution mandates that the winning candidate must secure the majority of electoral college votes. Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes based on its population. In reality, voters cast their ballots for members of the electoral college, who then vote to select the president.
Usually, the candidate who wins the most votes in a state also wins its electoral college votes, meaning popularity aligns with victory. The Electoral College comprises 538 votes, and an absolute majority of 270 or more is required to win the presidency.
Population size thus plays a significant role. States like California have as many as 54 electoral seats, while others like Wyoming and Alaska only have three each.
The primary reason for establishing the electoral college was that, in 1787, the US was a vast country with limited communication networks, making a direct presidential election impractical. The college allowed a select group to represent the people's will, and it accommodated the fact that southern states had large Black populations who could not vote.
However, issues have emerged with this system. As seen in recent years, when the popular vote winner does not win the presidency, it can lead to voter dissatisfaction. Furthermore, swing states hold disproportionate influence in the electoral process.
Critics argue that the system is undemocratic, as it grants significant power to a select few in the elite to represent the people’s wishes. Third-party candidates can also be impacted. For example, although Jill Stein has supporters, it is unlikely she would win a state. A vote for her is more symbolic.
The fairest outcome would reflect the popular vote through the electoral college. While this is often the case, recent elections have shown it is not always guaranteed.
There have been instances when a candidate won the popular vote but did not win the election. George Bush Jr’s victory over Al Gore in 2000 and President Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton in 2016 are recent examples of candidates winning the popular vote but losing in the electoral college.
The United States Constitution mandates that the winning candidate must secure the majority of electoral college votes. Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes based on its population. In reality, voters cast their ballots for members of the electoral college, who then vote to select the president.
Usually, the candidate who wins the most votes in a state also wins its electoral college votes, meaning popularity aligns with victory. The Electoral College comprises 538 votes, and an absolute majority of 270 or more is required to win the presidency.
Population size thus plays a significant role. States like California have as many as 54 electoral seats, while others like Wyoming and Alaska only have three each.
The primary reason for establishing the electoral college was that, in 1787, the US was a vast country with limited communication networks, making a direct presidential election impractical. The college allowed a select group to represent the people's will, and it accommodated the fact that southern states had large Black populations who could not vote.
However, issues have emerged with this system. As seen in recent years, when the popular vote winner does not win the presidency, it can lead to voter dissatisfaction. Furthermore, swing states hold disproportionate influence in the electoral process.
Critics argue that the system is undemocratic, as it grants significant power to a select few in the elite to represent the people’s wishes. Third-party candidates can also be impacted. For example, although Jill Stein has supporters, it is unlikely she would win a state. A vote for her is more symbolic.
The fairest outcome would reflect the popular vote through the electoral college. While this is often the case, recent elections have shown it is not always guaranteed.