The prospect of Trump’s second term looming and the recognition that the popular vote is not what wins presidencies, the calls are going up all over social media to deconstruct the Electoral College and put the vote to the national population as a whole. Progressives, seeking the centralization of power in administrative apparatus see the Constitution as a major impediment to establishing one-party rule. They ask why the majority is not allowed to determine who sits in the White House, After all, the argument goes, isn’ this a democracy? And doesn’t democracy mean majority rule? The Electoral College reflects the complexities of balancing the principles of federalism, the protection of smaller states, and the desire to prevent the potential dangers of direct democracy. So, no, this is not a democracy in the majoritarian sense. It is a republic founded on federalism. It is, after all, called the United States of America. (A Scheme to Thwart Mob Rule.)
A common complaint is that it’s people who vote not land. But it’s not as if majority rule doesn’t exist in the fifty states. Except for Maine and Nebraska, the majority of each state determines the electors, doesn’t it? And don’t bigger states get more electors than smaller states? Indeed. Then, because the country is vast and diverse with different ideas of how to live the good life, these majorities engage in a relationship with one another based on federalism—not majoritarianism—where the voice of minority states is respected and represented. In this system, the will of the people is not snuffed out by densely populated urban areas run by cosmopolitan elites.
The Senate is balanced by the House of Representatives, the latter determined on the basis of population count. So, whereas California and Wyoming have two senators each, California gets 52 representatives, whereas Wyoming gets one (presently, six states have only one representative). The branches of government are separate and coequal (although the House is given a tilt because it’s close to the people). Mapped over the entire system is a federal civil rights code, with each state having at least that or more if it chooses as long as it doesn’t contradict the former. (CNN Gaslights Its Viewers Over the Republican Character of the United States of America; Normalizing America Again.)
It is a beautiful arrangement. The Electoral College gives each state a number of electors equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress, which helps ensure that smaller states are not completely overshadowed by more populous states in presidential elections. The Electoral College reflects the federal structure of the United States by involving both the national and state governments in the election process. It recognizes the states as integral components of the Union, giving them a role in selecting the national leader. It balances the influence of the people, the states, and the federal government in the election process. Finally, it requires candidates to appeal to voters across a wide range of states and regions rather than focusing only on densely populated urban areas.
The main problem today is not the Electoral College. The main problems is twofold: big corporate donors control politicians, policies, and the regulatory apparatus; the emergence of the administrative state—an unconstitutional, unelected, and largely unaccountable fourth branch governs by agency rule and technocratic control well beyond the executive. Eliminating the Electoral College on top of these developments would allow the very forces that have corrupted the system to rule by tyranny of the majority steered by a powerful minority of the opulent, i.e., corporate state actors, and the bureaucratic strata that administers their affairs. To be sure, this is already the substance of the contemporary arrangement, where progressives have captured the administrative state—even at the local level by controlling the distribution and management of funds. But eliminating the Electoral College will lead to even more thorough-going one-party rule.
The worst possible reform we could make to the American system is getting rid of the Electoral College. The reforms we need to make follow from what I just identified: get corporate money and influence out of politics and deconstruct the administrative state. If you care about the American republic, those are the ends you seek. Put another way, the ends progressives seek is telegraphed by the reforms they propose. Are they calling for deconstruction of the administrative apparatus? Of course not. Look at the way they’re demonizing the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. (Attempt at an Albatross: The Manufactured Hysteria Over Agenda 2025; Project 2025: The Boogeyman of the Wonkish.)
freedom and reason 