This paper examines the ongoing debate between the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote (NPV) as mechanisms for electing the U.S. President. It outlines common criticisms of the Electoral College — including its winner-take-all structure and its tendency to concentrate campaign attention on battleground states — before turning a critical eye toward the NPV as an alternative. The paper argues that the NPV introduces its own problems, including an infrastructure mismatch across state electoral systems and the risk of heightened demographic polarization. The author also contends that bypassing the constitutional amendment process to implement the NPV reflects partisan motivations rather than principled reform, ultimately recommending that the Electoral College be preserved in its current form.
The current function of the Electoral College is that each state holds a set number of electoral votes for the presidency, proportional to that state's population. The candidate who wins the most votes in a given state receives all of that state's Electoral College votes. This winner-take-all structure has drawn sustained criticism from those who point out its inherent flaws.
For example, the system does not differentiate between a landslide victory and a narrow one, and it encourages politicians to compete almost exclusively in battleground states, effectively ignoring the needs of voters in non-competitive states. These concerns are legitimate: under this system, a candidate can win the presidency despite the opposing candidate having received more votes nationwide. That outcome does not reflect a perfectly functioning democratic system.
Critics of the Electoral College have proposed replacing it with a national popular vote as the method for determining the presidency. The appeal of this alternative is straightforward — in a true democracy, the candidate who receives the most votes should win. The popular vote would eliminate the distortions created by the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes and, in theory, force candidates to campaign across the entire country rather than concentrating resources on a handful of swing states.
As an alternative to the Electoral College, however, the National Popular Vote (NPV) is not a perfect solution. From a functional perspective, the patchwork of different state electoral systems is not built to administer a national popular vote, as Gregg (2011) points out. Countries that have unified national election bodies may be equipped for such a vote, but the United States is not structured that way.
Another significant problem with the NPV is that it could increase polarization among the electorate. Under a national popular vote system, candidates would build their platforms around catering to specific demographic groups that vote in large, cohesive blocs. The Baby Boom generation, for instance, is entering its senior years, and its sheer size means candidates would be compelled to prioritize its concerns. Similarly, Hispanic and African American voters can function as reliable voting blocs, and candidates would feel pressure to tailor their platforms to broad cultural and demographic needs rather than to the specific concerns of voters in particular states.
The NPV plan, therefore, does not eliminate one of the major flaws it is meant to address — it merely reframes it. Instead of ignoring non-battleground states, candidates would instead ignore any demographic group that does not vote in sufficiently large numbers. The structural incentive to focus on a subset of the electorate remains; only the nature of that subset changes.
"NPV seen as partisan bypass of amendment process"
In the absence of compelling evidence that a national popular vote system would improve the quality of governance in the United States over the long run, the Electoral College system should be retained in its current form, without any NPV provisions. The NPV introduces practical infrastructure problems, risks deepening demographic polarization, and represents a politically motivated effort to circumvent the constitutional amendment process rather than a genuine improvement to democratic governance.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.