The Electoral College and the Unit Vote work hand-in-hand to elect our President in the US. The system is complicated and one that organically formed early in our democracy. Changing this system has come up over 700 times in Congress and in each case has been ultimately defeated.
While he was a Senator, JFK encountered pundits wanting to change the Electoral College and in his opposition to such changes he had this to say:
“It is not only the unit vote for the Presidency we are talking about, but a whole solar system of governmental power. If it is proposed to change the balance of power of one of the elements of the solar system, it is necessary to consider the others.” – John F. Kennedy
How the Electoral College Works
The Electoral College is a unique method employed by the United States for indirectly electing the president and vice president. It involves a set of electors, appointed by each state, who formally cast their votes for these positions. The number of electors per state is equal to the total number of its Congressional representation—Senators and Representatives.
The concept of the Unit Vote, or “winner-takes-all,” is central to understanding the Electoral College. In this system, all of a state’s electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state. This method amplifies the winner’s margin and can sometimes result in a candidate winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.
In another post, I compare the Electoral College to an apartment association.
Example: In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won the Electoral College with 304 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227, despite Clinton receiving nearly 3 million more votes nationwide. This outcome was a result of winning key battleground states with narrow margins.
Historical Context of the Unit Vote
The Unit Vote, or winner-takes-all system, was not part of the original design of the Electoral College. Initially, states had the freedom to choose their electors in any manner they saw fit. However, by the early 19th century, the winner-takes-all method began to gain popularity. This shift was driven by the desire for a more decisive and straightforward election process. States adopted this approach to ensure that the winner of the state’s popular vote would receive all of its electoral votes, thereby simplifying the election process and reducing the likelihood of contested results.
Example: By the 1830s, most states had adopted the winner-takes-all approach. This change was partly driven by the desire to have a more straightforward and decisive election process, reducing the likelihood of contested or ambiguous results.
The Two-Party System
According to Tara Ross’ books, the Electoral College reinforces a two-party system. The winner-takes-all system makes it difficult for third-party candidates to gain traction, as they struggle to win entire states. This system encourages the formation of broad coalitions, pushing parties to appeal to a wide range of voters.
Example: In the 1992 election, Ross Perot, an independent candidate, received 19% of the popular vote but did not win a single electoral vote. His failure to secure any states demonstrated how the Electoral College makes it challenging for third-party candidates to succeed, thereby reinforcing the dominance of the two major parties.
Conclusion
The Electoral College, with its intricate balance of power, plays a crucial role in shaping the American political landscape. By understanding its workings, the Unit Vote’s impact, and the historical context, we can appreciate how this system contributes to the stability and functionality of the United States’ two-party system.
