​I. THE ORIGINS AND STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The Electoral College system, ratified as part of the Constitution in 1787, mandates that the president be chosen by electors. The electors are apportioned among the states in accordance with the state’s total number of congressional representatives, which includes both Senators and members of the House of Representatives. Initially, there were 65 representatives in addition to 26 senators, reflecting the original 13 states. Today, the Electoral College consists of 538 electors divided among the fifty states and the District of Columbia. This design gives smaller states disproportionate power, as their influence in the Electoral College outweighs their share of the population. This means that states have a greater influence on the Electoral College than their population size would suggest. This happens because every state gets two electoral votes from its representation in the Senate, which gives smaller states a disproportionately higher number of electoral votes per resident compared to larger states. This imbalance undermines the democratic principle described by Chief Justice Earl Warren as “one person, one vote.” 

American democracy and governmental legitimacy are derived from the consent of the people, as stated in the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” When the presidency is awarded to candidates who do not win the plurality of the popular vote—as has occurred five times in American history (including in the 2016 election)—the democratic framework is weakened by creating a tangible disconnect between the will of the people and the outcome of the election. It is fundamental to the legitimacy of the democratic systems that a government's authority be derived from the consent of the governed, and therefore, the outcome of elections must reflect the preferences of the plurality of voters to ensure the proper functioning of representative government. To preserve the democratic foundation of the republic, a constitutional amendment is necessary to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a system based on the popular vote.

II. MODERN FAILURES OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

In recent years, the Electoral College has produced several outcomes where the winner of the popular vote lost the presidency. In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton received approximately three million more votes than Donald Trump. However, Donald Trump would go on to win the presidency because of the distribution of electoral votes. Similarly, Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by over half a million votesagainst George Bush. Despite his apparent win in the popular vote, Gore ultimately lost the presidency to Bush due to the Electoral College vote, which was determined by the allocation of Florida's 25 electoral votes. Both of these elections remain a critical example of how the Electoral College can diverge from the popular will, raising questions about the system's effectiveness in reflecting the true democratic choice of the American electorate. Such results are antithetical to the democratic principle of equal representation, as they allow the will of the minority to override that of the majority. The Electoral College system fundamentally diminishes the value of an individual's vote, resulting in a winner-takes-all system where a candidate can win all of a state's electoral votes, even if they only secure a narrow majority of votes within the state.

The common argument that the Electoral College doesn't need to be a direct democracy often rests on the premise that the framers deliberately designed the United States Constitution to avoid a majoritarian system. This is true: America’s founders intentionally created a system of government that balanced democratic principles with safeguards against direct majority rule, leading to the representative democracy we have today. The Electoral College was intended to represent a compromise against direct democracy—seen as undesirable due to fears of a tyranny of the majority, thus creating a federal system within which states retain plenary power to choose their electors. The Framers were concerned that a majoritarian system could lead to larger states dominating and shutting out smaller states’ political power, leading to diminished influence of smaller states within the union. Additionally, they feared that a national popular vote could allow for regional factions to dominate, threatening national unity. However, while the Electoral College was designed to protect state interests and promote a more balanced federal system, its application has led to an imbalance of representation in the number of electors given to each state to elect the president. 

The Electoral College has ostensibly evolved into a system based on the outcome of the popular vote within states, undermining its original purpose of providing a buffer between the populace. The founders feared that the general population might not always make the most informed decisions, and so they created a system in which electors—chosen by each state—would have the final say in selecting the president. These electors were originally intended to exercise independent judgment, rather than simply reflect the will of the voters., This shift was cemented by the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiafalo v. Washington, which upheld states’ ability to bind their electors to vote according to their state’s popular vote. This ruling reinforced the power of states over their electors, but it also highlighted how the Electoral College no longer functions as an independent body as the Founders had intended. The electors have been stripped of their ability to independently evaluate and potentially override the will of the populace. This ability served as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that fundamental freedoms and legal protections are upheld, even when they are unpopular. Without such mechanisms, democratic systems risk devolving into majoritarian oppression rather than true representative governance.  The Electoral College no longer serves as an independent check on the electorate as originally envisioned; instead, it has become a distorted reflection of the popular vote, without any intentional antimajoritarian tendencies. 

III. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AS PRECEDENT FOR REFORM

There is a clear precedent for amending the Constitution to address electoral flaws that have arisen since the establishment of the country. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, reformed the original Electoral College system by requiring electors to cast separate ballots for President and Vice President.

Similarly, the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, established the direct election of U.S. Senators, replacing the previous system in which state legislatures selected Senators. This reform responded to concerns about corruption and undue influence in the selection process, as it allowed senators to be legislative appointees rather than elected officials. Both the Seventeenth and Twelfth Amendments addressed systemic flaws in the original Constitution and provided a precedent for electoral reform when necessary.

IV. THE CASE FOR A 28TH AMENDMENT

The United States cannot maintain its position as a global democratic leader while relying on a system that fails to uphold democracy by negating the opinion of the majority in favor of the minority. No other democracy in the world has a system akin to the United States Electoral College. The Electoral College dilutes the power of individual votes, particularly in larger states, and perpetuates a system that allows for the election of a president who has not received the most votes. A 28th Amendment to abolish the Electoral College and institute a national popular vote is not a partisan issue; it is a matter of preserving the integrity of American democracy. Pew Research Center reported in Fall 2024 that “almost 60% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States.” By ensuring that the President is elected based on the greatest total share of votes, the United States could restore faith in its electoral system. When comparing trust in elections among liberal democracies, a 2019 report by Harvard University's Electoral Integrity Project found that the United States ranked 57th between 2012 and 2018. Six in ten Americans are in favor of amending the Constitution so that the president is elected based on the popular vote.

To preserve the democratic integrity of the United States, the Electoral College must be abolished in favor of the popular vote. The current Electoral College, which has facilitated several instances where the presidency was awarded to a candidate who did not win the most votes nationally, fails to uphold the principles of democratic representation. This structure allows the preferences of a minority to supersede the expressed will of the majority, creating a misalignment between electoral outcomes and the foundational principle of representation. The continued reliance on the Electoral College undermines this principle and highlights the urgent need for reform to ensure fair and equitable representation in presidential elections.

The question at hand is whether the Electoral College still serves its original constitutional role or whether it has outlived its purpose, creating more problems by distorting the will of the people. In a non-connected society, where communication and participation are limited, representative democracy is more practical than direct democracy because it allows elected officials to make decisions on behalf of the people rather than requiring constant public involvement in governance. However, a modern, highly connected society allows for easy and active participation in elections. 

CONCLUSION 

The original purposes of the Electoral College—federalism and the founding fathers’ fears of direct democracy—no longer apply in today's political landscape, as it allows for a president to be elected without winning a plurality of the vote. This disconnect between the will of the people and election outcomes weakens the legitimacy of the government, as seen in instances where the winner of the popular vote did not become president. In a modern democracy, where the government’s authority should derive from the consent of the governed, a shift to a popular vote system is essential to ensure fairer and more representative elections. Federalism has shifted toward a centralized government, reducing the need for state-based election safeguards such as the Electoral College. This historical context further highlights why the institution is incompatible with democratic principles.

The abolishment and replacement of the Electoral College is not a partisan issue; it is one of ensuring and protecting the bedrock of our representative democracy and republicanism. By replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote, we can ensure equal representation of votes and that the president is truly elected by the will of the people.