Many Americans don’t want to hear it, but the Electoral College is a particularly damaging system that wildly distorts the will of the voter, delivers crazy results, and suppresses participation — since most of us live in places where the outcome is predetermined.

It also makes the United States a global joke because it seems incapable of holding reasonable elections. I have covered perhaps 100 countries as a foreign correspondent and I can say with certainty that among democracies, none has such a berserk system.

Thanks to this, the former president Donald Trump could well win Tuesday’s election while receiving far fewer votes than the vice president Kamala Harrisand this would be the third time in seven rounds (after 2000 and 2016) that this has happened. That’s because, as any child knows, the “popular vote” means nothing. Do you know what the synonym for “popular vote” is? The “vote” – and in any other democracy, that means a lot.

This has fueled widespread discontent, with polls showing about 60 percent in favor of a national popular vote for president. And yet, most people also believe that such change is impossible – a shamefully undemocratic situation.

How did we get here?

The Electoral College was created in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention, when only 13 states formed a union – the first colonies to declare independence from Great Britain. And almost all of the reasons for this no longer apply – starting with the primary goal of balancing influence between more and less populous states. The idea was that since each state ran its own elections, a slight overrepresentation of slightly smaller candidates would force candidates to pay attention.

But, for starters, mass communication has made personal campaigns less important now. And more importantly, the massive concentrations of support now mean that all but a handful of “battleground states” will always vote a certain way and, under this system, can be ignored. And the states that “benefit” from it – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and a few others – are generally not the smallest at all. These, contrary to plan, can be safely ignored, and they are.

Absurdly, voters in the three largest cities – New York, Los Angeles and Chicago – are also safely ignored; candidates have no incentive to campaign in these urban centers because the states they are in are generally Democratic. In a direct election, where every vote counts, American presidential candidates would present themselves as the French do in Paris, Lyon and Marseille.

Second, elitist editors feared “mob rule” and wanted a buffer between the public and the outcome, trusting voters to make an informed choice. However, voters are now no longer directly concerned, except in the event of a tie in the elections. They do not make choices but rather are human stand-ins for what are essentially “points” awarded by states.

The system was also designed to preserve the states as separate entities, mirroring the federal system. This may seem fair, and it certainly reflects the hesitation of the 13 colonies to create a single nation. But today it is very out of step with reality.

United States East a country – which claims to be the most important in the world – even if there are local and regional particularities, like everywhere. Many French people are proud of Provence, but they remain French; an American may feel an affinity with New Jersey, but with few exceptions, the primary affiliation is to the country, not the state.

The final reason in favor of this system was logistical: at the time, travel and communication limitations made a direct national popular vote difficult. But today, the exact opposite is happening. Having a simple common system would eliminate the friction caused by each state having different schemes that allow different shenanigans, at the same time. Florida’s Hanging Children.

Additionally, at the time the Electoral College was created, there were not such large disparities in state sizes. Virginia was almost twice as populous as number two Pennsylvania, but only about 10 times larger than Delaware, the smallest state.

Compare that to today, where California, home to 39 million people, is 67 times larger than Wyoming. But because of the way the number of electors is calculated, he only has 18 times the number of electoral votes (54 versus the minimum of three). This means that one vote in Wyoming is mathematically worth almost four votes in California. Like allowing any crazy person to buy assault rifles, it’s unique in the world, and not in a good way. This is a fundamental and blatant violation of the fundamental democratic principle of “one person, one vote.”

THE Senatewhich is more powerful than the presidency in that it can impeach the president, is even worse. Because of the same exaggerated respect for the states, each elects two of the 100 senators. That means one Senate vote in Wyoming is worth 67 in California, and the 25 smallest states, with about 18 percent of the national population, can control the Senate. Given that the vast majority of these small states reliably have Republicansince this party appeals most to rural voters, this means that the system is heavily rigged in this party’s favor.

Other countries with district-based systems also face distortions, if support is “wasted” by hyperconcentration in certain areas. This is the case in Britain, but the results there are never as crazy as in America, because at least the districts are about the same size.

There is almost no way to change this madness, because it is tied to the Constitution, and the amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states – meaning many reliably red states would have to agree to end their own privilege.

It’s not sustainable. This seems too unfair and will cause too much frustration in blue America, which disproportionately creates the nation’s wealth (Brookings found that counties that voted for Joe Biden in 2020 represented 70 percent of US GDP).

If current trends continue, expect talk of secession from the majority-democratic Pacific and Northeast regions. How long will they tolerate Republican obstruction of gun control or health care reform, or perhaps a national ban on abortion? Since secession requires a nearly impossible constitutional amendment, it could turn violent.

There is one possible outcome: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This strangely underappreciated initiative offers a practical solution without the need to amend the Constitution: it is an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of state vote. The pact will only take effect when enough states join to reach the 270 electoral votes required to win.

As of 2024, the NPVIC has been enacted in 16 states and Washington, DC, collectively representing 209 electoral votes. It has gained ground in big blue states like California and New York, but also in smaller states like Vermont and Delaware. To activate the pact, 61 additional electoral votes are needed. States targeted for possible inclusion in the compact are Minnesota (10 electoral votes), Nevada (6 electoral votes), Maine (4 electoral votes) and Michigan (15 electoral votes). Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), despite being a crucial state in this debate, has seen its efforts to pass NPVIC legislation repeatedly fail in the state legislature, despite some public support .

Pennsylvania’s hesitancy reflects a broader national trend: Swing states, which currently enjoy disproportionate influence in presidential elections, are resistant to the pact. But if it wins, NPVIC would mean that every vote would count and the winner would be the one who attracted the most support. It would also mean that instead of focusing exclusively on swing states, candidates would be forced to appeal to voters across the country, including in smaller states that are not swing states, as the designers argue. had hoped!

As the country grapples with polarization and declining trust in institutions, this could help restore trust in politics. And since NPVIC offers the only solution, and since people are people, I have one categorical advice: look for a catchier name!

Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press based in London, former president of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem and author of two books. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.