Ex-Carter official: How liberals can use Electoral College to their advantage
Many liberals and progressives have been outspoken critics of the Electoral College, arguing that the United States should abolish it and — like other democratic republics — elect presidents via the popular vote.
The Electoral College, they argue, gives Republicans an unfair advantage in presidential elections. And they lament the fact that two GOP presidents of the last 25 years — George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 — went to the White House despite losing the popular vote (Bush didn't win the popular vote until 2004, Trump until 2024).
But Simon Lazarus, who served as a White House senior staffer under President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s, disagrees with the argument that the Electoral College is inherently unfair to Democrats.
READ MORE: 'Trump ’28': Bannon calls for third term
In an article published by The New Republic on December 16, Lazarus argues, "That Donald Trump managed to win both the electoral vote and the popular vote has finally provided Democrats and liberals with the chance to correct a deeply ingrained misconception: the reflexive meme that the Electoral College is a structural barrier that systematically stacks the national electoral playing field against them. Factually, that grievance may have seemed correct in 2016, but historically, it is very wrong."
Lazarus notes that in the "235 years since the Constitution was first ratified," there have only been five examples of presidential candidates winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.
The Carter Administration alumni stresses that abolishing the Electoral College is "not feasible," as it would require "a constitutional amendment." Instead of pursuing an unrealistic goal, Lazarus stresses, Democrats should run stronger presidential campaigns and concentrate on expanding the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"There are alternative institutional electoral reform concepts that would be better for Democrats and liberals to spotlight than a national majority vote amendment," Lazarus writes. "In particular, one such approach appears more attainable and tailored to address the real-world shortcomings of the current regime. This approach is expanding the membership of the House of Representatives."
READ MORE: New Kristi Noem proposal would fund Christian ‘segregation academies’
Read Simon Lazarus' full article for The New Republic at this link.
