Eliminate the Electoral College? You'll Never See Your Candidate Again

image
Published: 10 Mar, 2016
2 min read

As a follower of politics, I love seeing all the hair-brained ideas that sprout up from time-to-time arguing for this change or that, without really considering what would happen if it was actually put into practice.

We live in a federal republic. Big states have a larger share of influence, but smaller states still maintain at least some balance through the equal representation in the Senate.

The Electoral College was part of this framework. Presidential candidates had to win at the state-level, but an enormous win in one state couldn't skew the entire result.

That is, a candidate might win 99% of the vote in California and it wouldn't matter; they only win the delegates apportioned to the state.

This highlights the problems with eliminating the Electoral College; the very nature of campaigning would change, and most Americans would never see a candidate again.

America is facing growing urbanization -- almost 81 percent of the population lives in cities.

Even worse, right at one-third of the U.S.'s total population lives in only ten metropolitan areas!

We're used to the battleground state phenomenon, where states become flyovers because they are pocketed wins. However, if we eliminated the Electoral College, candidates could campaign in the top 20 metro areas and win the lion's share of votes.

IVP Donate

This would be a politicking nightmare -- candidates jockeying to dominate the airwaves in the markets with the most people, while others totally ignore the rural and nationwide vote.

The biggest losers, though, would be the Republicans.

The red/blue map is often dominated by where the urban regions are located. Solid swaths of red are typically wide spreads of rural America.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the urban/rural divide is often represented in the red/blue map -- and forcing candidates to campaign along the urban/rural divide would be a stacked deck in favor of the Democrats.

Our Founders knew that they weren't forming a perfect form of government, that's why they allowed for a mechanism for change. But to think that we should change to a system where Democrats could campaign in 20 cities while Republicans scramble to unify the rural areas, how would this improve the existing system?

Photo Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

You Might Also Like

“Cartoon illustration of Americans facing the U.S. Capitol as light pierces through red and blue partisan cracks, representing independent voters and hope for political reform.”
New Poll: Voters Want New Leadership – and They’re Turning to Independents
A new poll from the Independent Center highlights a clear message from the public: Americans are fed up with the current political leadership, and they’re ready for change....
12 Nov, 2025
-
2 min read
Massachusetts voters.
Ranked Choice Voting Momentum Surges in Massachusetts as Cities Push for Local Control
Ranked choice voting (RCV) continues to see a surge in momentum across the U.S. However, the state that has seen the largest reform growth in the last 5 years -- Massachusetts -- has received little attention. This is because the 10 cities that have approved RCV have not been able to implement it due to state law....
14 Nov, 2025
-
5 min read
Caution tape with US Capitol building in the background.
Did the Republicans or Democrats Start the Gerrymandering Fight?
The 2026 midterm election cycle is quickly approaching. However, there is a lingering question mark over what congressional maps will look like when voters start to cast their ballots, especially as Republicans and Democrats fight to obtain any electoral advantage possible. ...
11 Nov, 2025
-
8 min read