The Guardian's view of America's electoral college: time to abolish an anti-democratic relic editorial

TThe last two presidential elections have raised serious questions about the strength of American democracy, and unfortunately, Tuesday's election may heighten those concerns. At the heart of this question is the Electoral College, which allows Americans to elect their president indirectly through state-appointed electors. Although the Electoral College has sparked controversy for more than 200 years, Donald Trump's victory in 2016 — despite losing the popular vote by 3 million — reinforced the sense that the system undermines democratic principles. It would be heartbreaking if the bumbling, vengeful and power-hungry Mr. Trump won because of the anti-democratic Electoral College results.

But that could happen. After the Civil War, four presidents – all Republicans – lost the popular vote but won the White House via the Electoral College. Mr. Trump's 2024 campaign appeared intent on repeating that feat or causing enough chaos to push the election into the House, where Republican delegations are likely to prevail. His strategy is based on divisive rhetoric characterized by inflammatory and often discriminatory topics. Instead of bridging divides, he wants to deepen them – and is aiming for an election victory by gathering his most ardent supporters around him.

With numerous legal challenges expected, the final election results could be delayed for days. In 2020, despite losing the popular vote by 7 million, Trump refused to concede and attempted to undermine the certification process. The complex mechanisms of the Electoral College leave room for exploitation, a vulnerability that Mr. Trump appears happy to exploit, even if it means inciting violence. Now he's laying the groundwork for future allegations of cheating with a barrage of lies and preparing to complain if he loses again.

Under the Electoral College framework, candidates must win 270 voters, a majority of the 538 voters at stake, to win. Proponents argue that the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in different regions across the country by allocating a certain number of electoral votes to each state and creating a winner-take-all system in all but two states. In theory, this promotes nationwide attention, but in practice this goal is often not achieved. Kamala Harris and Mr. Trump have focused their efforts on the large, competitive states. Ms Harris has focused her efforts on the “blue wall” of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania – which current polls suggest would be enough to get her into the White House. Mr. Trump only needs Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina. In Pennsylvania alone, the Harris and Trump campaigns spent a combined $576 million on political advertising.

In his book Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America, historian George C. Edwards III points out that Gallup polls over the past 50 years have shown that most “Americans have continually increased their support for the idea of ​​formally changing the U.S. Constitution that would make this possible “for the direct election of the President”. It's not a fantasy. In 1969, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment with a strong bipartisan majority and the support of Richard Nixon. Three quarters of the states signaled support. But it was killed in the Senate by a filibuster led by southern senators who feared that a popular vote would empower African Americans. The best-known attempt to abolish the Electoral College today is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Tim Walz, Ms. Harris's vice president, supports scrapping the current system. Is it possible to abolish the Electoral College? It shouldn't take the nightmare of a second Trump presidency to reform this anti-democratic relic of the 18th century.

• Do you have an opinion on the topics raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.