What is the significance of the popular vote

Public awareness of this fact also potentially lowers voter turnout. During the presidential race, two-thirds of of the general-election campaign events took place in just 6 states Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan , according to National Popular Vote , an organization that advocates for the compact. Small states were largely ignored — as were the populous states of New York, Texas, and California, which were viewed as reliably red or blue.

The general election saw a similar trend , despite the impact of the Covid pandemic on physical campaign events. With the NPV, every vote would have equal weight, giving campaigns the incentive to engage with voters in every state. The addition of four states in a single year was a big win for the NPV.

Additionally, when Colorado voters took NPV to the ballot in , they confirmed the popular support for the measure. But it also suffered some legislative defeats during the session. Nevada Gov. NPV advocates believe that those last 74 electoral votes are now within reach and hope to secure a national popular vote for the presidential election.

Gauging from the recent momentum, lawmakers across the country have come to see that it might finally be possible to reform the outmoded, undemocratic Electoral College. Explore Our Work. Why not stick with the Electoral College? How does the Electoral College disenfranchise voters? Pastor Danielle Ayers. October 25, Legislative backlash against election officials poses serious implications for democracy. Will Wilder , Andrew Garber. October 20, Removing this system could encourage more people to come out to support their candidate.

Security would be improved across the country. There are logistical issues that are managed at the local level in each election. Others may struggle to meet higher than expected voter turnout levels. If the election is based off a popular vote, each of these areas would need to be closely examined in real-time, which would enhance the security of each vote that is cast. There would be fewer opportunities to illegally alter the results of an election.

Battleground states would disappear in U. Under the current structure of the electoral college, the focus of a presidential campaign is on the so-called battleground states.

These are the states that may go to either major party candidate in the election. That means some voters, like Republicans in California or Democrats in Mississippi, are voting without power and without attention from their preferred candidates each year.

A switch to the popular vote would eliminate the concept of a battleground state because the issue would be more on issues than states. It would eliminate the Congressional provisions for a non-majority election. The electoral requires that an election which does not receive a majority of electoral votes be taken into the U.

House of Representatives. At that stage, anyone who received an electoral vote is eligible to become the next president. Should that happen, then the final decision of who gets to serve as President of the United States is taken away from individual voters. It happened once, in Moving to the popular vote structure would eliminate this potential issue.

It could help to reduce partisanship. Under the current structure of presidential elections in the U. This divide creates natural divisions between groups of people who both support their country, but in different ways.

It would eliminate superfluous votes. Under the electoral college system and other voting systems not based on popular voting , it only takes one extra vote more than the other candidate to create the needed results for the election. All other votes cast for that candidate are therefore superfluous. In , Hillary Clinton had more than 10 million of these votes, while Donald Trump had more than 8.

The popular vote eliminates this issue too. A close election would trigger the need for a full recount. The cost of a presidential election in the United States is already several billion dollars. On a close popular vote, often defined as a difference of 0. That means the cost of counting all the votes would be duplicated. With the polarization in global politics today, especially in the United States, a switch to the popular vote would likely increase costs even further.

It would limit the influence of local issues in the election. Battleground states are those that are a toss-up to either candidate. Often with many electoral votes at stake, these are where candidates spend most of their time and resources competing for votes. These states have a lot of power and can decide the outcome of a presidential election.

Critics of the Electoral College claim it gives outsized power to small states because they are guaranteed three electoral votes despite lower population size. The makeup of the United States has changed a lot since the implementation of the Electoral College.

Because of the distribution of electoral votes, some believe the Electoral College actually gives an advantage to some states. Meanwhile, people in states that have a large population but are not battleground states lose the value of their own vote because electoral votes are already decided and there is less incentive for candidates to spend time campaigning in that state.

This perception of a loss of the value of their vote can decrease voter turnout. Discussions around the Electoral College and a popular vote have promising arguments on each side. For now, the Electoral College is here to stay but the power of the states is on the rise.

Ultimately, the concept of electors choosing the president was a compromise that all states could agree to, with the state legislatures deciding how those electors would be chosen because the state legislatures were the closest body to the people. Join the anti-corruption movement. Thank you for joining The Movement! Share Tweet. Other Stories Here's how much telecom money it takes to turn a member of Congress against Net Neutrality.