Young 1

Dylan Young
Rodgers, Yonamine, Washington
Senior Inquiry
6 December 2015
The Electoral College: Why Your Vote Doesnt Matter
In the year 2000, America had made it to the new century and to welcome in the
millennium the U.S. population voted into office a new president. When November 7th came it
was time to decide who would be the head of state for the next four years. This time around the
contest was between the incumbent Democratic Vice President, Al Gore, and the Republican
Texas Governor, George W. Bush. The election looked bright for Gore, earning the majority of
the popular vote, with Bush falling just behind Gore. The election looked all but over with Gore
as the winner due to popular vote; however after much debate, and much work towards recounts,
in Florida the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on December 12th, the end of recounting votes in
Florida thus securing the election results for George W. Bush by Electoral votes. This rare
phenomenon of the popular vote losing sparked outcry and criticism of the government,
specifically the Supreme Court and the now spotlighted Electoral College. The 2000 election was
not the first time such phenomenon had been wrought by the Electoral College, but it showed
new generations just how much their votes could not matter. The truth is that the Electoral
College has almost penultimate power over the presidential election outcome, thus devaluing the
popular vote and suppressing the peoples power to vote for the president.
The Electoral College was created in 1787 by the founders after much debate on what
system should be installed for the election of head of state. Universal support for a popular vote
was not there, some delegates argued for it while others believed the general population should

Young 2

have less influence, also argued was that logistically a popular vote would be daunting even for a
small country of four million people, and lastly that State loyalties may hold more influence
when the 13 States were voting rather than the nation's best interests (Election Assistance
Commission). After debating on three major ways of voting for head of state, a popular vote,
Congressional appointment, and an Electoral College, the founders finally decided on an
Electoral College. This Electoral College would leave it up to state to select a designated amount
of electors who would then go on to cast votes for the presidential election. The original
Electoral College allowed each Elector two votes for president, with the runner up becoming the
vice president; however, after the election in 1800, where the electoral college ended up in a tie
and the decision was left to the House of Representatives and after thirty-six rounds of voting
finally elected a president, the twelfth amendment was drafted (EAC). This amendment
maintained the electors two votes, but required one go to the presidential election and one to the
vice presidential election, thus creating the president and vice president candidate teams as we
know it know it now in the 21st century. Even with a newly reformed system the Electoral
College would not go forward without its fair share of further issues.
The 2000 election was not the first time that an overthrow of the popular vote occurred,
but it was the first time in over a century and only the fourth time in U.S. history. The first time it
happened was in the 1824 election between John Quincy-Adams and Andrew Jackson, this
election differs from that of the 2000 election in that Jackson held more Electoral College votes
and popular votes than Quincy-Adams; though a majority of Electoral votes was not reached, the
required Electoral votes to win was 131. With no candidate reaching the majority in the Electoral
College, under the 12th amendment, Quincy-Adams was elected by vote in the House of
Representatives despite the higher popular vote for Jackson (Library of Congress). Adams won

Young 3

with delegation votes from thirteen states, just enough to claim majority, with Jackson claiming
seven; Adams thirteenth state delegation came from split New York where only one
representative was undecided, this representative was invited into House Speaker Henry Clays
office and when the following roll was called New York went to Adams. Clay was later
announced as Adams Secretary of State which fueled credence of a corrupt bargain against
Adams presidency (Neale). This is an important election to look at due to the nature of
overruling of the popular vote. Even though Jackson had the both the Electoral and popular vote
behind him, it came down to a political bargain behind closed doors, in which it was in the best
interest of the individuals involved, to elect the slightly less popular Adams.
The next time the popular vote was overruled was in the 1876 election between Democrat
Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford Hayes, this election resembles more so the 2000
election in that Tilden won the popular election by three percent, but regardless Hayes won by
Electoral College votes by one, just enough to take the majority. Hayes win over Tilden was not
certain at first, in fact Hayes feel short of Tildens Electoral vote by twenty, but a few states
become the center of attention with leads for Hayes narrowly over Tilden. These states vote
results became a much disputed topic with an escalation leading to both party leaders threatening
violence. Hayes victory was attributed to The Compromise of 1877 where a disputed twenty
Electoral votes would go to Hayes, securing his inauguration, so long as Hayes withdrew federal
troops from the states of the former Confederacy (Neale). The 1876 election shows once more
how the popular vote can easily be blatantly disregarded in order to advance personal agenda and
gain. Granted the compromise between the two party members benefitted everyone overall, it
was not the initial will of the people and silent discontent spread throughout the Democratic
voters.

Young 4

Before the 2000 election the last time the popular vote was overruled was in the 1888
election, over a century time difference. In the 1888 election the main policy debate was tariffs, it
was between Democrat Grover Cleveland, who was for tariff reduction, and Republican
Benjamin Harrison, who stood with the high tariffs. The election results showed a narrow victory
of around 100,000 in the popular vote for Cleveland, but the Electoral College vote showed a
very comfortable position of presidency for Harrison with the results being 233 to 168 (Neale).
This election is critical to examine because it shows just how out of proportion the Electoral
College votes can be. With such a close popular vote one would assume that if our vote matter it
would have been a much closer election, however we got a very one sided result. This is caused
by the fact that in the Electoral College, the representation of the state is of a winner-takes-all
nature (Wheeler). Such a nature creates a distorted representation of voters beliefs, so
consequently it strays from the majority rule, that has long since been an American value.
The nature of the Electoral Colleges representation makes what is known as swingstates, a state that both Democratic and Republican candidates have a good chance of winning
(Dictionary.com). These states become pivotal to elections, leaving the candidates to petition to
these states far more than any other already clinched state. Candidates fight to win a state by just
even a few thousand votes because even with such a small marginal difference the candidate with
more votes earn all of the Electoral College votes. There are 27 states with laws that prohibit
Electoral candidates from voting for whomever they please, and instead vote for the presidential
candidate that they are pledged to (Archives). This means that in those 27 states once a
candidate takes the majority of the popular vote all of the Electoral votes go to said candidate, it
is not proportional to the amount of votes that each presidential candidate receives. One of the
states with such law is California, who holds the most Electoral College votes at 55, it is a large

Young 5

state to win and gives the candidate who wins it a solid footing in the overall election. The 23
states without laws around what is called faithless voting, where Electoral College delegates vote
do not vote for their partys designated candidate by either voting for someone else of the same
party, or voting for the opposing party all together, still often follow a winner-takes-all approach
(Faithless). We often see the 23 states dedicate all of their votes towards a single candidate,
such is often the case with Texas, pledging to a candidate with all 38 of their Electoral votes. One
might assume with such high Electoral College representation that states like California and
Texas have high voting turnouts, it is actually the opposite California had around a 45.3% of
their voting population actually vote in the 2012 presidential election, Texas had only 41.9% of
their voting population vote; whereas as state like Minnesota, with only ten Electoral College
votes, had a turnout of 71.6% of their voting population in the 2012 election (HOR Resident).
With turnouts since the 1936 election never being higher than 62.8% it is important to notice that
actual representation in the election is never full representation, so it is even more flawed to have
a system that does not proportioning distribute representation amongst those who vote
(Participation).
With such daunting facts facing American voters its hard to want to vote for the
president. America has always stood for something greater, a symbol of freedom for those
looking from the outside, an open door to have representation from the government, but with
such a flawed election system it is hard think such things. America would be much better off
with a popular vote, so that equal representation is provided to every voter.

Young 6

Works Cited

House of Representatives. "Resident Population Of Voting-age, Total Votes Cast, And Percent
Casting Votes-States: 2012 To 2014 [As of November]." ProQuest Statistical Abstract of
the U.S. 2016 Online Edition. Ed. ProQuest, 2016. Web: ProQuest Statistical Abstract
12/15
House of Representatives. "Participation In Elections For President And U.S. Representatives:
1934 To 2014 [Selected Years, As Of November]." ProQuest Statistical Abstract of the
U.S. 2016 Online Edition. Ed. ProQuest, 2016. Web: ProQuest Statistical Abstract 12/15
"Faithless Electors." FairVote. FairVote, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
McBride, Alex. "Bush v. Gore (2000)." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 06 Dec. 2015.

Young 7

Neale, Thomas H. "When the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote Differ." IIP Digital |
U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, 05 Sept. 2008. Web. 06 Dec. 2015.
United States of America. Library of Congress. Library of Congress. U.S. Government,
n.d. Web. 06 Dec. 2015.
Wheeler, Sarah M. "Policy Point-Counterpoint: Electoral College Reform." International Social
Science Review 82.3/4 (2007): 176-179. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.