How the 'antiquated' Electoral College can be reformed to root out 'intrigue and corruption'

As 2016 demonstrated, a presidential candidate can win the popular vote by millions of ballots and yet still lose the election due to the Electoral College. Now, one columnist is making the case to shore up democracy to reform the system he calls "antiquated."

In a Tuesday essay for the Washington Post, retired naval officer columnist Theodore Johnson argued that the Electoral College is in "glaring" need of reform due to its propensity to put losers of elections in positions of immense power. Johnson illustrated this point by reminding readers that eight years ago, Donald Trump was sent to the White House not because more voters chose him over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who beat him by roughly three million votes) but because he won roughly 78,000 more ballots across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

"The college has certainly seen its share of intrigue and corruption. Along the way, it’s become increasingly unrepresentative even as our democracy has become more accessible," he wrote.

READ MORE: 'God help us': 2024 Electoral College could be decided by this lone congressional district

Johnson explained that since Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, public polling has gradually swung more in her direction across the country, reflecting the shifting opinion of millions of voters. But he noted that "the people’s shift is of little interest in the college," where "states matter most."

"[I]ts winner-takes-all system doesn’t care whether victory in a state is decided by one vote or 1 million. As a result, though Harris could win the popular vote by millions, Trump could still win more states," Johnson wrote. "In a system designed more than 200 years ago, that combination means lopsided elections can become electoral nail-biters."

Thanks to the Electoral College, presidents who lost the popular vote — George W. Bush and Donald Trump — were able to appoint five of nine Supreme Court justices (Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, while Trump appointed Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh). This system has resulted in countless history-defining decisions that may have not otherwise taken place if the popular vote winners prevailed. Had Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore instead won their respective elections, the Court would have an 8-1 liberal supermajority with the lone conservative justice being Clarence Thomas.

In his column, Johnson explained three ways the Electoral College could be reformed to still allow smaller states to matter in the counting of votes but to also better reflect the will of the public. One option is to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing it entirely (which would require the clearing of a nearly insurmountable obstacle in getting two-thirds of state legislatures and both chambers of Congress along with the president to agree). Another is to do as Maine and Nebraska do and allocate electoral votes by congressional district, though Johnson admitted that option would still be undemocratic given the prevalence of partisan gerrymandering.

READ MORE: Winning these two states would make Harris or Trump 'overwhelming favorites' to win election

The third option would be to have electoral votes be divvied up proportionally as opposed to a winner-take-all system. For example, if a candidate won 60% of a state, they would win 60% of the state's Electoral College votes. He argued that this would even benefit third parties, as Green Party candidate Jill Stein would have won one elector in both California and Texas in 2016.

"Importantly, this reform would continue the electoral college’s built-in protections. It wouldn’t be a simple reflection of the popular vote," he wrote. "Instead, the college would refocus its protection from favoring low-population states to giving voice to political minorities everywhere — an outcome truer to the college’s founding idea."

"Change won’t come this semester, but the need for reform is glaring," he added. "The logic is sound, and the process is clear. The only open question is if we are brave enough to finally make the college our own."

Click here to read Johnson's column in its entirety (subscription required).

READ MORE: 'Pretty narrow window': Here's how the 2024 election will be decided by razor-thin margins