The Electoral College: An Overview

The current system used for electing the President of the United States is the Electoral College. This system, which was implemented in the 18th century, has been a subject of considerable discussion and debate. The Democratic Party, among others, often advocates for its elimination, citing the assertion that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in every election since 1992.

Is the Electoral College Effective?

The effectiveness of the Electoral College can be seen as subjective based on one's perspective. The primary purpose of the Electoral College was to ensure that smaller states had a voice in presidential elections, thereby preventing more populous states from "bullying" less populous ones. While it is true that larger states have more electoral votes, the Electoral College still provides a platform for smaller states to have their say.

However, this system also has its flaws, particularly when it comes to the way candidates campaign. Since the 1990s, Republican candidates have largely focused their efforts on battleground states, while Democratic candidates have exerted similar efforts. This has led to a situation where certain states are largely ignored, and their electoral votes do not reflect the will of their citizens in a meaningful way.

The Campaign Strategy of the Electoral College

For Republican candidates, the strategy revolves around winning battleground states. Historically, they do not campaign extensively in "blue firewall" states like California, New York, and Massachusetts because the outcome is virtually predetermined. Even if a candidate could gather millions more votes in these states, the overall outcome would remain unchanged. A significant victory in these states (if feasible) might provide some electoral votes, but it is unlikely to secure a presidency in the absence of critical winning states in the right regions.

The argument extends to the 2016 election, where the lack of significant voter engagement in certain states likely contributed to Donald Trump's victory. Had Republican candidates campaigned more aggressively in these states, the popular vote might have been closer, potentially shifting the election outcome.

The Role of Campaigning in Swing States

Swing states, where the outcome is highly contested, play a crucial role. These states act as the balance points in presidential elections. If candidates campaign more in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, they can sway the outcome. However, the small population in places like South Dakota and Wyoming means that spending resources there can yield minimal electoral benefits.

For Democrats, the challenge is similar. While they have made significant efforts to flip Texas, Florida, and other traditionally Republican states, these efforts have been marginal in terms of electoral impact. The focus on smaller, more populous battleground states like Pennsylvania allows them to potentially secure more electoral votes with their resources.

The Psychology of Voter Participation

The 'winner-take-all' psychology plays a significant role in voter turnout. When Democrats are confident of winning a state, their supporters are more likely to turn out to vote. Likewise, if Republicans believe they are going to lose, some of their supporters might feel their votes do not matter and opt not to vote. This can be detrimental to both parties when crucial states are overlooked.

However, if both parties were to invest more in swing states, voter participation could increase. In states like Pennsylvania, every vote could matter, and the sense of participation might motivate more people to vote. This is an area where the Electoral College can be seen as a double-edged sword; it can marginalize voter engagement in less crucial states but also energize it in key battlegrounds.

Conclusion and Future Prospects

The Electoral College system is complex and not without its flaws. While it aims to give all states a voice, its current implementation has led to significant disparities in campaign strategies. The reliance on battleground states and the winner-take-all mentality have diminished the impact of voters in non-battleground states.

Both parties should indeed be careful what they wish for when considering changes to the system. While the popular vote system might seem more equitable, it could also result in a more marginalization of small states and the reinforcement of a two-party system that increasingly focuses on battleground states.

Ultimately, the future of the Electoral College will depend on how each party adapts its strategies to engage a broader base of voters and ensure that as many Americans as possible feel their votes matter.