Imagine a presidential election without battleground states. No continuous reporting about how older white voters, suburban women, men without college degrees and union members from three “blue wall” states could swing the election.
Keep imagining a president elected by the popular vote after the mysterious and increasingly troublesome Electoral College is eliminated — an election where the presidential candidates would campaign nationwide, not just in seven battleground states needed to reach the crucial 270 electoral votes.
Never again would a presidential candidate lose the election but win the popular vote — an Electoral College quirk that occurred in 2000 and 2016 and could easily happen in November.
Think about increased voter participation for the first presidential election with 50 battleground states. A new political chapter begins when citizens directly cast their ballot for the next president with no “wasted votes” from Republican voters in Democrat majority states and vice versa — an Electoral College curse.
Americans have thought about and imagined all the above, confirmed by a recent Pew Research Center survey. Pew found 63 percent of Americans would rather elect the president through a national popular vote. It is very hard to find anything that 63 percent of Americans agree on.
As usual, a schism exists between parties. Among Democrats, 80 percent favor a popular vote compared to only 46 percent of Republicans.
Given the overwhelming support for a presidential popular vote, “No battleground states by 2028!” could become a rallying cry that resonates on Capitol Hill, beginning the arduous process of amending the Constitution.
Clearly, voters are disgusted with the Electoral College, which makes Pennsylvania — the nation's fifth most populous state with only 19 electoral votes — the key to the White House. The candidate who loses the Keystone State will need to win a combination of North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona’s electoral votes to get to 270.
Meanwhile, in the warped Electoral College puzzle, the states with the four largest populations – California, Texas, Florida and New York — are practically ignored, except for high dollar fundraising.
Millions of “wasted votes” in these four dominant states illustrate how their residents are disenfranchised by the Electoral College’s winner-take-all system, translating into electoral votes when the state predictably turns red or blue.
In 2020, California had 11.1 million Joe Biden voters, which easily won him the state’s 55 electoral votes (now 54). Donald Trump received 6 million “wasted votes.” The argument often voiced by Republicans who malign the popular vote say, “I don’t want California determining who wins the presidential election.” But that is a mathematical fallacy. If you remove California from the equation completely, Biden beat Trump by 1.9 million votes nationwide anyway.
Look at Texas. In 2020 Trump won 5.8 million votes there, earning him 38 electoral votes (now 40). Biden’s 5.2 million wasted votes in Texas exceeds Georgia’s 4.9 million total presidential voters, in a state with 16 electoral votes.
Florida used to be the quintessential swing state. It turned red in the Trump era when, in 2020, he won 5.6 million votes and 29 electoral votes (now 30). Biden’s 5.29 million wasted votes in the Sunshine State topped the total number of votes cast in Virginia (4.3 million) and New Jersey (4.5 million).
New York, the fourth most populous state, further demonstrates the Electoral College's warping effect. In 2020, Biden voters numbered 5.2 million, winning him 29 electoral votes. Trump’s 3.2 million wasted votes exceeded the total number of presidential voters in 35 of the 50 states.
Add it all up, and the Electoral College’s anti-democratic "wasted votes" problem discourages presidential voting in the many states with predetermined outcomes, where people know “my vote does not count.” Meanwhile, in battleground states, “one person one vote” counts too much in winner-take-all contests where the next leader of the free world can be decided by the tiniest margin.
Another strong argument for eliminating the Electoral College are controversies over “faithless electors” — that is, electors who vote contrary to the winner of their state’s popular vote. And Trump supporters added to this argument with the attempted corruption of the Electoral College by allegedly scheming to empanel slates of “fake electors.” This is still playing out in federal court, and across several states.
Finally, never forget the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol was about stopping the certification of the Electoral College's vote.
This year, with the presidential election tied in the polls, a “catastrophic scenario” could occur. If Harris and Trump each win 269 Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives would decide who is president on a one-state, one-vote basis. But before we get there, “even one faithless elector could ostensibly swing the election...The chicanery that would ensue as a result would usher in yet another constitutional crisis that would test the American republic in unprecedented and potentially dangerous ways.”
My greatest 2024 election fear is a rerun of 2016, when Trump won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Due to heightened polarization since then, I believe that such an outcome would also dangerously “test the American republic” and acceptance by the Harris majority.
This week, while on the campaign trail, Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz said, “I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote.” True, but not while Republicans believe the Electoral College tilts in their favor.
Nevertheless, if the Harris-Walz ticket wins, the new vice president should call Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who has twice introduced a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and establishing direct national voting for president. There is a popular will for it, so there's no harm in trying: “No battleground states by 2028!”
Myra Adams is an opinion writer who served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008.
