Many progressives despise the Electoral College

Here’s why we need to keep it around

Mikie Negrete, Times Staff

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






“It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.”

That was a tweet from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D–NY) and her view of the Electoral College could not be more backwards, incorrect and misinformed.

Does using the Electoral College as the system to elect the President of the United States dillute democracy? Yes it does.

However, the Electoral College also makes the election of the President more fair to the smaller states with smaller populations.

Without the electoral college, California, New York and Illinois would be deciding every single presidential election.

What do those three states all have in common? They consistently award their electoral votes to the Democratic nominee for president.

The United States would never have a Republican president again, which to many here in California may sound like a good thing, but to many others all over the country sounds like a nightmare.

A lot of progressives further left than most Democrats have been arguing that the Electoral College disenfranchises a countless amount of voters every election – like those in the states with the larger populations.

However, one could also argue that the electoral college actually protects the voters in the states with smaller populations from disenfranchisement – states like Alaska, Montana, North and South Dakota and Wyoming, all states with only three electoral votes each.

Without the electoral college, the combined population of the five states mentioned above (almost 4 million people) can all consider their votes invaluable to the election of the next president, as the dominating population of California, New York and Illinois would dictate the way the election went.