5 Reasons to Abolish the Electoral College
The Electoral College has twice in the last quarter-century handed the presidency to a candidate who finished second in the national popular vote: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016. Those split outcomes revived a debate as old as the Constitution itself: should Americans elect their president the way they elect governors, senators and mayors — by direct popular vote?
Critics argue the current system ignores the will of voters, concentrates presidential campaigns in a handful of states and gives some Americans’ votes more weight than others. Below are the five strongest arguments made by those who want to abolish the Electoral College or replace it with a national popular vote. (For the other side of the debate, see 5 Reasons to Keep the Electoral College.)
Key Takeaways
- The Electoral College winner has lost the national popular vote five times: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.
- In 2024, 94% of general-election campaign events took place in just seven states.
- Polls have shown majority support for a national popular vote in nearly every survey since 2000.
- The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact now has 222 of the 270 electoral votes it needs to take effect.
1. Every Other Election in America Is Decided by Popular Vote
Voters in all 50 states choose their governors, U.S. senators, members of Congress, state legislators and local officials by direct popular vote. The presidency is the only office where the candidate with the most votes can lose.
That wasn’t always true of the Senate. Until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, state legislatures chose U.S. senators. Advocates for a national popular vote argue that American political culture has moved past the indirect, filtered elections the framers designed in 1787 — and that the presidency should follow the same path the Senate did. (For background on the framers’ original intent, see Why Was the Electoral College Created?)
Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar has been one of the most prominent voices for a popular vote. In a 2016 debate published by The New York Times, Amar pointed out that every state elects its own chief executive by popular vote, with no Electoral College equivalent. States already handle close statewide races, recounts and certification without major problems, he argued, which offers a blueprint for a national popular vote.
Penn State University Professor Eric Plutzer has made a related point: the way Americans pick presidents has already changed dramatically since the founding. Voters now choose party nominees directly through primaries and caucuses — something the framers never imagined. Since voters already shape the nominating contest, Plutzer argues, the Electoral College needlessly obscures their choice in the general election.
2. The Electoral College Doesn’t Treat Every Vote Equally
The core democratic objection is simple: under the Electoral College, a vote in one state is worth more than a vote in another.
Every state gets electoral votes equal to its House seats plus its two senators, which guarantees even the least populous states at least three. Today six states — Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming — plus the District of Columbia have the minimum of three. Writing for the Brennan Center for Justice, Alex Cohen calculated that Wyoming voters have nearly four times as much influence per person as California voters.
Cohen also noted that under the winner-take-all system used by 48 states and D.C., every vote beyond the one needed to carry a state is effectively wasted — it adds nothing to the candidate’s electoral vote total. (Only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes by congressional district.)
Stanford University historian Jack Rakove, a Pulitzer Prize winner for his work on the Constitution’s origins, argued in 2016 that the Electoral College weighs votes differently depending on where they are cast and that the outsized influence of small states distorts results. A national popular vote, Rakove said, would have a unifying effect because individual voters — not state voting blocs — would decide the outcome.
Critics also point to the near-misses. In 2004, George W. Bush won the national popular vote by about 3 million votes, but a shift of roughly 59,000 votes in Ohio would have given John Kerry the presidency. In 2020, Joe Biden won the popular vote by more than 7 million, yet a combined shift of about 43,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin would have produced a 269-269 tie decided by the House of Representatives.
3. Most Voters Live in States the Campaigns Ignore
Because almost every state awards all its electors to the statewide winner, candidates have little reason to campaign in states they are sure to win or sure to lose. Popular vote supporters argue that this shrinks the value of votes in safely red states and blue states — a divide whose history we trace in The Origins of Red and Blue States.
The numbers are stark. According to National Popular Vote, 246 of the 262 general-election campaign events in 2024 (94%) took place in just seven battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Those states hold a little less than 20% of the U.S. population. The other 43 states and D.C. got no general-election events at all. The pattern isn’t new: the group counted 100% of 2012’s general-election events in just 12 states.
Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam found a similar story in 2012. By his count, only six states were decided by roughly five points or less, while the remaining 44 states had an average margin of 19 points. That meant, McAdam said, that “four out of five Americans exercised no real electoral voice in the 2012 presidential election.”
Supporters of the current system often say a popular vote would let candidates ignore rural America. Political scientist Robert Speel, writing in Time in 2016, argued the opposite. He found that 53% of campaign events for the four candidates on the major-party tickets in the final two months of the 2016 race were in just four states — Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio — and that none of the four ever visited 27 states, “which includes almost all of rural America.” Speel concluded that the Electoral College “does not create a national campaign inclusive of rural areas,” and that voters from small towns to big cities would matter more if every vote counted equally. (For more, see How Does the Electoral College Impact Campaign Strategies? and our argument that the Electoral College does not help small states.)
4. A Popular Vote Would Encourage Higher Turnout
Under the Electoral College, a state’s electoral votes are fixed by its population, not by how many of its residents actually vote. A state with 50% turnout gets the same number of electors as it would with 80%. Critics argue this removes any incentive for states to make voting easier — and, as we’ve written, that the Electoral College penalizes high turnout.
Amar argued that a national popular vote would change that calculation: every state that increased turnout would gain more say in choosing the president. The incentive would be strongest in reliably red or blue states, where turnout tends to stagnate because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Amar suggested same-day voter registration, early voting and a national election holiday as reforms states might adopt to compete. (Compare state-by-state participation over time on our voter turnout history page.)
There are practical hurdles. In 2008, Plutzer noted that while a popular vote would be beneficial, the country’s patchwork of voting rules and technologies would complicate a national count. That patchwork still exists today: states set their own rules on registration, mail voting, voter ID and recounts. Popular vote supporters argue that moving to a national vote would create pressure to modernize and harmonize those systems.
5. Most Americans Support a National Popular Vote
Popular vote supporters often point to public polling showing that their position is the majority view — and has been for decades.
- A Gallup poll conducted in September 2024 found 58% of Americans favor amending the Constitution so the popular vote winner becomes president, compared with 39% who want to keep the Electoral College. Gallup notes support has generally held around 58% to 62% since 2000, with a brief dip to 49% right after the 2016 election.
- A Pew Research Center survey taken in August and September 2024 found 63% would prefer that the candidate who wins the most votes nationally becomes president, versus 35% who favor the current system.
- Earlier polling told a similar story. Marist found 52% support for a popular vote to 45% for the Electoral College in December 2016, and Pew found 55% support in 2018.
The issue has grown more partisan. In Gallup’s 2024 poll, 82% of Democrats and 60% of independents backed a popular vote, compared with 32% of Republicans. In the 1960s through the 1980s, Gallup found majorities in both parties favored a change.
Support also depends on how reform is achieved. Gallup’s 2019 survey found 55% backing a constitutional amendment but 53% opposed to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would deliver the same result without amending the Constitution.
How Could the Electoral College Be Abolished?
Eliminating the Electoral College outright requires a constitutional amendment: approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, then ratification by 38 states. Congress came close once — in 1969 the House passed a direct-election amendment 339 to 70, but it died in a Senate filibuster in 1970. Read more in our history of Electoral College reform efforts.
The more active path today is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, under which member states agree to award their electors to the national popular vote winner — but only once states totaling at least 270 electoral votes have joined. With Virginia’s addition in April 2026, the compact has 18 states and D.C., totaling 222 electoral votes. Critics question whether it could survive a court challenge without congressional consent.
Want to test how a different system would change the outcome? Build your own forecast on our interactive electoral map, or see what would happen if every state split its electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many times has a president won without the popular vote?
Five times: John Quincy Adams in 1824 (decided by the House), Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.
Do most Americans want to abolish the Electoral College?
Yes, according to most polls. Gallup found 58% support for a popular vote amendment in 2024, and Pew found 63%. Support is much higher among Democrats than Republicans.
Can a state legislature abolish the Electoral College on its own?
No. Only a constitutional amendment can eliminate it. States can, however, change how they award their own electors — which is how the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and Maine’s and Nebraska’s district systems work.
What are the arguments for keeping the Electoral College?
Supporters say it protects federalism, forces candidates to build broad geographic coalitions and contains recounts to individual states. See 5 Reasons to Keep the Electoral College and myths about abolishing the Electoral College.