Harris would not make the Electoral College more democratic if he won it

The assumption was that the Electoral College math would continue to favor Republicans and disadvantage Democrats. But the main theme heading into the 2024 presidential election appears to be: “Expect the unexpected.” Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump remain frustratingly close in poll after poll, opening the door to a world where he wins the popular vote but still loses the Electoral College and the presidency.

If this were to happen, it would upend years of assumptions about the shape of American democracy. It was the Democrats who were loudest in demanding that the rudimentary Electoral College body be finally removed from the Constitution. But even if Harris only wins thanks to a mysterious formula invented over 200 years ago, there is still no good reason to maintain such an undemocratic institution.

Harris and Trump are statistically deadlocked in many key swing states, with neither having a clear lead outside the margin of error in most polls. But the eight states considered crucial in the final days of the race aren't important because they're the most populous. Rather, the reason places like Georgia and Pennsylvania matter so much is because they are competitive enough to tip the Electoral College toward one candidate or another.

We've already seen recently that Democrats performed better in the national popular vote compared to the final tally of the Electoral College – twice. When Trump won in 2016, it was a narrow victory in the Electoral College, but he lacked a popular mandate; His loss in 2020 was also a national blowout, but was extremely narrow in the swing states that toppled President Joe Biden. That means: Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by just under 23,000 votes and lost it in 2020 by around 21,000 votes.

All indications are that it will be just as close this year – but what if it doesn't just come down to a handful of voters in less than 20% of the states in the Union? I have long argued that the Electoral College has been distorted far beyond the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. As I wrote after the 2020 election, the version of the Electoral College envisioned by Alexander Hamilton, in which “'there will be a constant probability of the office being filled by outstanding ability and virtue,'” essentially never has “That's how it works.”

Instead, the rise of political parties gave way to the current system. Voters on Election Day are actually selecting either Democratic or Republican voters who promised to cast their ballot her They vote for the candidate of their respective party. It is a complicated practice that creates an unnecessary layer between the people and the presidency. Additionally, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said in a 2022 interview, “There are so many winding byways and nooks and crannies in the Electoral College that there are opportunities for a lot of strategic mischief.”

Trump tried to exploit these oddities in his failed attempt to stay in office after his defeat in 2020. However, there was no real push to abolish the Electoral College. In fact, the closest the country came to this goal was in 1970, when Richard Nixon ran away in the popular vote but won the popular vote with less than 1% of the national vote. The resulting constitutional amendment passed the House of Representatives but was defeated in the Senate, a case in which an anti-democratic institution could only be maintained thanks to an anti-democratic process.

With the electoral system still firmly in place for next week's election, it will take very specific circumstances for Harris to prevail while losing the popular vote to Trump. As The New York Times' Nate Cohn explained last month, Trump's lead in the Electoral College has dwindled as the gap between Harris' lead in national polls and the so-called “Tipping Point” state has narrowed. This is possible because Harris is doing well in the northern battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, while Trump is operating on the sidelines in uncompetitive states like New York.

The fact that we even have to do such a calculation to figure out who might win the presidency is absurd. Current mechanisms disenfranchise urban conservatives and rural liberals alike and replace political agency with geography. A world in which the direct popular vote was decisive would force candidates to compete for every vote in every state. It would be another much-needed step in America's century-long transformation from a union of independent states to a single national entity.

The question would then arise as to whether Harris would run a different campaign than he does now without the hyperfocus on swing states. And given her shift to the center and her intense focus on shaking off moderate Republicans, I can't say she would do that. Nor would Trump be inclined to choose the middle in this situation – not that he would have won in 2016 without the support of the Electoral College.

And the idea that Trump could win the popular vote while losing the Electoral College should not serve as a deterrent to abolishing it. If that is truly the will of the American people, let it be squarely on his mind that he be returned to the White House. May it be a true race for the hearts and minds of the entire electorate that ends the American experiment in democracy, rather than an adherence to the scribblings of aristocrats fearful of the power of their countrymen.