The Case for Proportional Allocation of Electoral College Votes

Introduction:

The United States' current system of electing the President through the Electoral College has long been a subject of debate. Some argue that the "winner takes all" allocation of electoral votes unfairly discounts the votes of those who support the losing candidate. This essay proposes that a proportional allocation of electoral votes would be a more equitable and democratic method.

Argument 1: Improved Representation

In the current system, the votes of citizens in the minority party within a state are effectively ignored, as all the state's electoral votes go to the majority winner. This can lead to large portions of a state's electorate feeling disenfranchised. A proportional allocation of electoral votes would ensure that the votes of all citizens are reflected in the final result.

Argument 2: Reduction of Swing State Influence

Currently, candidates often focus disproportionately on "swing states" where the outcome is uncertain, while neglecting reliably "blue" or "red" states. Proportional allocation would incentivize candidates to campaign nationwide, as they would need to compete for every electoral vote, not just those in swing states.

Argument 3: Greater Alignment with the Popular Vote

Historically, there have been instances where the winner of the popular vote lost the election due to the Electoral College system. A proportional allocation would align the Electoral College more closely with the popular vote, reducing the likelihood of such outcomes.

Conclusion:

A proportional allocation of electoral votes would improve representation, reduce the disproportionate influence of swing states, and bring the Electoral College into greater alignment with the popular vote. It is a fair and equitable solution that deserves serious consideration in the ongoing debate about electoral reform.