What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?
A New Statesman Book of the Year
With every presidential election, Americans puzzle over the peculiar mechanism of the Electoral College. The author of the Pulitzer finalist The Right to Vote explains the enduring problem of this controversial institution.
Every four years, millions of Americans wonder why they choose their presidents through the Electoral College, an arcane institution that permits the loser of the popular vote to become president and narrows campaigns to swing states. Most Americans have long preferred a national popular vote, and Congress has attempted on many occasions to alter or scuttle the Electoral College. Several of these efforts―one as recently as 1970―came very close to winning approval. Yet this controversial system remains.
Alexander Keyssar explains its persistence. After tracing the Electoral College’s tangled origins at the Constitutional Convention, he explores the efforts from 1800 to 2020 to abolish or significantly reform it, showing why each has failed. Reasons include the complexity of the electoral system’s design, the tendency of political parties to elevate partisan advantage above democratic values, the difficulty of passing constitutional amendments, and, importantly, the South’s prolonged backing of the Electoral College, grounded in its desire to preserve white supremacy in the region. The commonly voiced explanation that small states have blocked reform for fear of losing influence proves to have been true only occasionally.
Keyssar examines why reform of the Electoral College has received so little attention from Congress for the last forty years, and considers alternatives to congressional action such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and state efforts to eliminate winner-take-all. In analyzing the reasons for past failures while showing how close the nation has come to abolishing the institution, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? offers encouragement to those hoping to produce change in the twenty-first century.
With every presidential election, Americans puzzle over the peculiar mechanism of the Electoral College. The author of the Pulitzer finalist The Right to Vote explains the enduring problem of this controversial institution.
Every four years, millions of Americans wonder why they choose their presidents through the Electoral College, an arcane institution that permits the loser of the popular vote to become president and narrows campaigns to swing states. Most Americans have long preferred a national popular vote, and Congress has attempted on many occasions to alter or scuttle the Electoral College. Several of these efforts―one as recently as 1970―came very close to winning approval. Yet this controversial system remains.
Alexander Keyssar explains its persistence. After tracing the Electoral College’s tangled origins at the Constitutional Convention, he explores the efforts from 1800 to 2020 to abolish or significantly reform it, showing why each has failed. Reasons include the complexity of the electoral system’s design, the tendency of political parties to elevate partisan advantage above democratic values, the difficulty of passing constitutional amendments, and, importantly, the South’s prolonged backing of the Electoral College, grounded in its desire to preserve white supremacy in the region. The commonly voiced explanation that small states have blocked reform for fear of losing influence proves to have been true only occasionally.
Keyssar examines why reform of the Electoral College has received so little attention from Congress for the last forty years, and considers alternatives to congressional action such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and state efforts to eliminate winner-take-all. In analyzing the reasons for past failures while showing how close the nation has come to abolishing the institution, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? offers encouragement to those hoping to produce change in the twenty-first century.
544 pages, Hardcover
First published July 31, 2020
44 people are currently reading
800 people want to read
About the author
Alexander Keyssar
19 books15 followersAlexander Keyssar is an American historian, and the Matthew W. Stirling Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
Read
August 1, 2020
Author’s note:
I received a free advance copy of this book based on a
news article
I wrote on the Electoral College, which was published in The Christian Science Monitor in December 2019. While the article featured an interview with Professor Keyssar, this review was written independently from the book’s author.
A Review of Alexander Keyssar’s Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?
By Dwight A. Weingarten
The best place to help one understand Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? the titular question of Harvard professor Alexander Keyssar’s new book, might not be Philadelphia, where the nation’s new system of government emerged during the summer of 1787, but the small, Southern town of Orange, Virginia.
Montpelier, the Virginia home of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” provides a key to understanding the system’s endurance that visiting Independence Hall and hearing the oft-repeated tale of the men during the hot summer in Philadelphia will not.
Here at Madison’s home, in his library, are books on systems of government from around the world and throughout history.
His study--his search for why other governments throughout history failed--helped create an integral part of the Constitution. Work that has endured largely intact after over 200 years and a Civil War. Madison’s Virginia Plan, which created three branches of government and a bicameral legislature, was the outcome of his thought--his study of history and government.
It is in a similar analytical vein that Keyssar’s book emerges.
While Madison analyzed why governments failed, the Harvard professor investigates the landscape of American history to explain why attempts at Electoral College reform have failed. Through the history, Keyssar contextualizes the current moment and modern day reform efforts to explain why the system of electing a president has endured.
As for the answer to Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College? roads lead back to Montpelier.
“Soul-Searching”
While the “Father of the Constitution” drafted and helped usher in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 changes to the document in the 18th century, perhaps no man’s influence on the Constitution in the 20th century is more pronounced than Birch Bayh.
Bayh, a Democratic Senator from Indiana, drafted and pushed the 25th Amendment, which dealt with presidential succession and the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age.
Sandwiched in between the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967 and the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, there is another Bayh-backed Constitutional reform effort, which Keyssar explores in the chapter “An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” The book covers not just the push for a national popular vote amendment, but moves thematically through four parts, discussing a variety of reform efforts and their corresponding legislative debates.
It was the Indiana senator’s effort to abolish the Electoral College with an amendment for a national popular vote in 1969, however, which came the closest to reforming the system since the adoption of the 12th Amendment in the early nineteenth century. This effort to change the centuries old system did not come easy for Bayh, Keyssar explains.
It came after what Bayh called “a great deal of soul-searching.” The senator opposed President Lyndon Johnson, the leader of his own party, who wanted to narrowly reform the system in order to eliminate electors and have states’ automatically cast their votes for the winner in the state.
Changing parts of the Electoral College system, to Bayh was “like shifting around parts of a creaky and dangerous automobile engine, making it no less creaky and no less dangerous.”
A national popular vote, he said, was the “next logical outgrowth of the persistent and inevitable movement toward the democratic ideal.”
This move did not transpire in a vacuum. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, the upheaval of the decade, and the 1968 third-party run of George Wallace all led to the moment where the Electoral College system came the closest to changing in over a century. But it didn’t.
The system stayed the same and Keyssar explains why.
“Reform was Blocked”
Despite the resolution for a national popular vote (NPV) passing the House of Representatives with 83 percent of the vote, including support from over three-quarters of the representatives from “small states” with six or less electoral votes, and support from over 80 percent of Republican representatives, the measure stalled and ultimately was blocked in the Senate.
A week after the resolution passed the House, a Gallup poll indicated 81 percent of Americans supported the move to replace the Electoral College with a direct national election. In a section called “The Senate and the South,” Keyssar analyzes why the popularity did not translate into legislative action.
“Boiled down to the essentials, reform was blocked by a coalition of southern Democrats and small-state conservative Republicans,” Keyssar writes. Bayh called out Strom Thurmond, the South Carolina senator, for his delaying tactics on the measure.
The specter of slavery and its legacy again haunted democracy. The tumult was nothing new.
While Madison read and researched systems of government at Montpelier, the enslaved worked the plantation. It was on the same property during the colonial period that Madison’s grandfather died, purportedly killed by the enslaved on the Virginia property.
On the issue of race, Keyssar’s work makes a necessary, timely, and important contribution to the discussion of the Electoral College. In his conclusion, he writes: “The desire to maintain white dominance in the South, often cloaked in disingenuous arguments about federalism and small states, suppressed debate about a national popular vote and later impeded the passage of an NPV amendment.”
While Keyssar addresses the racial past with honesty, he does not dwell there. He opens the door towards the future.
“The history tells us, in effect, that things change and that there is no necessary reason for the pattern of past defeats to recur indefinitely,” writes Keyssar, alluding to shifts in the South.
“An Undercurrent of Democratic Progress”
Another strength of Keyssar’s work is its depth. The work covers the gamut of Electoral College history from its inception until developments earlier this year. In a chapter called “Electoral Reform in the Era of Good Feelings,” Keyssar unearths an August 1823 Madison missive.
The “Father of the Constitution,” having served two terms as president, wrote the private correspondence on the Electoral College, possibly from the same Montpelier study overlooking the Blue Ridge Mountains, where ideas for the Constitution had come over three decades earlier.
Writing to fellow Virginian George Hay, a lawyer, politician, and the son-in-law of President James Monroe, Madison acknowledged flaws in the constitutional design, attributing them to “the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience” of the final weeks of the Philadelphia Convention.
He expressed that he did not want his view “brought into any public discussion,” due to “‘the propensity of the moment to view everything, however abstract’ from the perspective of the forthcoming election.” Here in intent, Keyssar’s work diverges from Madison’s letter.
The book comes into public view at a time of great national soul-searching, months from a presidential election. And while the book may not contribute any official legislative discussion of the system prior to November, the Bayh-backed reform efforts of the 20th century provide an instructive hint at the conditions necessary for change.
“The party system and the two national political parties of themselves were in flux in the 1960s,” Keyssar writes, commenting on the conditions surrounding the movement for a national popular vote amendment that passed the House overwhelmingly in 1969.
The months prior to the presidential election this year will likely be partisan, if the recent past is an indicator. But this book Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College? will be there before the election, and perhaps more importantly, after. In a less partisan climate, reform might find fertile ground.
“An undercurrent of democratic progress courses through the trail of legislative defeats,” Keyssar concludes. “Knowledge of the history beneath the stark headlines may also provide useful insights, demythologizing some claims, contextualizing the setbacks, distinguishing among the factors that have made the struggle for reform such an uphill climb.”
The book provides the history for a conversation about the country’s Electoral College system. It is not a new conversation, but it does require a clear-eyed view of the Founders--a view that takes into consideration their great accomplishment and their humanity.
“By the 1810s and 1820s, a number of the framers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Rufus King, were convinced that further changes were needed,” Keyssar writes. Their system, two centuries later, still endures. Of the endurance of the Electoral College, Keyssar asks why?
To those seeking reform, this book is necessary to understand the system and in order to attempt to change it. To those seeking continuity, Madison’s study and the search for the failure points of governments is instructive for this moment. In order for the democratic system of the Founders to endure, both those seeking reform and those seeking continuity must understand Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College? This book provides an answer, the road led through the South. The real question is what is the next chapter.
A Review of Alexander Keyssar’s Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?
By Dwight A. Weingarten
The best place to help one understand Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? the titular question of Harvard professor Alexander Keyssar’s new book, might not be Philadelphia, where the nation’s new system of government emerged during the summer of 1787, but the small, Southern town of Orange, Virginia.
Montpelier, the Virginia home of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” provides a key to understanding the system’s endurance that visiting Independence Hall and hearing the oft-repeated tale of the men during the hot summer in Philadelphia will not.
Here at Madison’s home, in his library, are books on systems of government from around the world and throughout history.
His study--his search for why other governments throughout history failed--helped create an integral part of the Constitution. Work that has endured largely intact after over 200 years and a Civil War. Madison’s Virginia Plan, which created three branches of government and a bicameral legislature, was the outcome of his thought--his study of history and government.
It is in a similar analytical vein that Keyssar’s book emerges.
While Madison analyzed why governments failed, the Harvard professor investigates the landscape of American history to explain why attempts at Electoral College reform have failed. Through the history, Keyssar contextualizes the current moment and modern day reform efforts to explain why the system of electing a president has endured.
As for the answer to Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College? roads lead back to Montpelier.
“Soul-Searching”
While the “Father of the Constitution” drafted and helped usher in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 changes to the document in the 18th century, perhaps no man’s influence on the Constitution in the 20th century is more pronounced than Birch Bayh.
Bayh, a Democratic Senator from Indiana, drafted and pushed the 25th Amendment, which dealt with presidential succession and the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age.
Sandwiched in between the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967 and the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, there is another Bayh-backed Constitutional reform effort, which Keyssar explores in the chapter “An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” The book covers not just the push for a national popular vote amendment, but moves thematically through four parts, discussing a variety of reform efforts and their corresponding legislative debates.
It was the Indiana senator’s effort to abolish the Electoral College with an amendment for a national popular vote in 1969, however, which came the closest to reforming the system since the adoption of the 12th Amendment in the early nineteenth century. This effort to change the centuries old system did not come easy for Bayh, Keyssar explains.
It came after what Bayh called “a great deal of soul-searching.” The senator opposed President Lyndon Johnson, the leader of his own party, who wanted to narrowly reform the system in order to eliminate electors and have states’ automatically cast their votes for the winner in the state.
Changing parts of the Electoral College system, to Bayh was “like shifting around parts of a creaky and dangerous automobile engine, making it no less creaky and no less dangerous.”
A national popular vote, he said, was the “next logical outgrowth of the persistent and inevitable movement toward the democratic ideal.”
This move did not transpire in a vacuum. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, the upheaval of the decade, and the 1968 third-party run of George Wallace all led to the moment where the Electoral College system came the closest to changing in over a century. But it didn’t.
The system stayed the same and Keyssar explains why.
“Reform was Blocked”
Despite the resolution for a national popular vote (NPV) passing the House of Representatives with 83 percent of the vote, including support from over three-quarters of the representatives from “small states” with six or less electoral votes, and support from over 80 percent of Republican representatives, the measure stalled and ultimately was blocked in the Senate.
A week after the resolution passed the House, a Gallup poll indicated 81 percent of Americans supported the move to replace the Electoral College with a direct national election. In a section called “The Senate and the South,” Keyssar analyzes why the popularity did not translate into legislative action.
“Boiled down to the essentials, reform was blocked by a coalition of southern Democrats and small-state conservative Republicans,” Keyssar writes. Bayh called out Strom Thurmond, the South Carolina senator, for his delaying tactics on the measure.
The specter of slavery and its legacy again haunted democracy. The tumult was nothing new.
While Madison read and researched systems of government at Montpelier, the enslaved worked the plantation. It was on the same property during the colonial period that Madison’s grandfather died, purportedly killed by the enslaved on the Virginia property.
On the issue of race, Keyssar’s work makes a necessary, timely, and important contribution to the discussion of the Electoral College. In his conclusion, he writes: “The desire to maintain white dominance in the South, often cloaked in disingenuous arguments about federalism and small states, suppressed debate about a national popular vote and later impeded the passage of an NPV amendment.”
While Keyssar addresses the racial past with honesty, he does not dwell there. He opens the door towards the future.
“The history tells us, in effect, that things change and that there is no necessary reason for the pattern of past defeats to recur indefinitely,” writes Keyssar, alluding to shifts in the South.
“An Undercurrent of Democratic Progress”
Another strength of Keyssar’s work is its depth. The work covers the gamut of Electoral College history from its inception until developments earlier this year. In a chapter called “Electoral Reform in the Era of Good Feelings,” Keyssar unearths an August 1823 Madison missive.
The “Father of the Constitution,” having served two terms as president, wrote the private correspondence on the Electoral College, possibly from the same Montpelier study overlooking the Blue Ridge Mountains, where ideas for the Constitution had come over three decades earlier.
Writing to fellow Virginian George Hay, a lawyer, politician, and the son-in-law of President James Monroe, Madison acknowledged flaws in the constitutional design, attributing them to “the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience” of the final weeks of the Philadelphia Convention.
He expressed that he did not want his view “brought into any public discussion,” due to “‘the propensity of the moment to view everything, however abstract’ from the perspective of the forthcoming election.” Here in intent, Keyssar’s work diverges from Madison’s letter.
The book comes into public view at a time of great national soul-searching, months from a presidential election. And while the book may not contribute any official legislative discussion of the system prior to November, the Bayh-backed reform efforts of the 20th century provide an instructive hint at the conditions necessary for change.
“The party system and the two national political parties of themselves were in flux in the 1960s,” Keyssar writes, commenting on the conditions surrounding the movement for a national popular vote amendment that passed the House overwhelmingly in 1969.
The months prior to the presidential election this year will likely be partisan, if the recent past is an indicator. But this book Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College? will be there before the election, and perhaps more importantly, after. In a less partisan climate, reform might find fertile ground.
“An undercurrent of democratic progress courses through the trail of legislative defeats,” Keyssar concludes. “Knowledge of the history beneath the stark headlines may also provide useful insights, demythologizing some claims, contextualizing the setbacks, distinguishing among the factors that have made the struggle for reform such an uphill climb.”
The book provides the history for a conversation about the country’s Electoral College system. It is not a new conversation, but it does require a clear-eyed view of the Founders--a view that takes into consideration their great accomplishment and their humanity.
“By the 1810s and 1820s, a number of the framers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Rufus King, were convinced that further changes were needed,” Keyssar writes. Their system, two centuries later, still endures. Of the endurance of the Electoral College, Keyssar asks why?
To those seeking reform, this book is necessary to understand the system and in order to attempt to change it. To those seeking continuity, Madison’s study and the search for the failure points of governments is instructive for this moment. In order for the democratic system of the Founders to endure, both those seeking reform and those seeking continuity must understand Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College? This book provides an answer, the road led through the South. The real question is what is the next chapter.
September 30, 2020
Some spoiler alerts about the bare facts, but not about the "whys," which are covered in great depth in a well-researched book.
Lots of stuff I didn't know, like reforming the EC to require states to use the "district vote" system (think Maine and Nebraska) was first raised in the late 1790s and considered as possibly being added to the 12th Amendment, but when Republicans got massive Congressional majorities after the 1802 midtern elections, they weren't so enthusiastic.
It then had a second burst during the Era of Good Feelings, but as Jacksonians consolidated power, that too faded away. In the elbow throwing 1824 election, of the 24 states at that time, 12 were the “general ticket,” the more technical name for winner take all, 6 were district elections of some sort, and the other 6? Legislature-chosen (but then normally voting on the state lege’s winner-take-all desire.)
Other voting issues led off in the Emancipation world. Then, in the 1890s, populism led, briefly, anew, to district elections pushes. Not all gave the two “senatorial” votes to statewide winner; for example, Michigan created two half-state superdistricts.
Also, Texas' Tom DeLay led mid-decade redistricting? Michigan tried it in the 1890s, but Republicans couldn't agree among themselves as to what redistricting map they wanted. That’s a good sidebar of the book. More on that in a minute.
What’s missing? A popular vote push. That didn’t first arise until the 1970s. Before then, with Jim Crow, liberal northerners refused to surrender the power of their winner-take-all to Southern states disenfranchising Blacks. (And also refused to use the 14th Amendment’s Congressional reduction tool when having a Congressional majority.)
Keyssar also puts the lie to the idea that small states have been the ones to cling most to the Electoral College. Related? He shows how they’re not the biggest beneficiaries.
More than once in the past, some version of a constitutional amendment has passed one half of the Congress with the necessary 2/3 vote but fallen short in the other half.
As for the future? Republicans double down on winner take all and have made this an anti-democratic political position.
And, no, Trump’s threats and Shrub Bush’s actuality weren’t the first considered assault on the EC in modern times. Had either Hawaii, or especially, Ohio, been closer in 1976, Ford’s team had some plans sizzling on the back burner, Keyssar says.
Lots of stuff I didn't know, like reforming the EC to require states to use the "district vote" system (think Maine and Nebraska) was first raised in the late 1790s and considered as possibly being added to the 12th Amendment, but when Republicans got massive Congressional majorities after the 1802 midtern elections, they weren't so enthusiastic.
It then had a second burst during the Era of Good Feelings, but as Jacksonians consolidated power, that too faded away. In the elbow throwing 1824 election, of the 24 states at that time, 12 were the “general ticket,” the more technical name for winner take all, 6 were district elections of some sort, and the other 6? Legislature-chosen (but then normally voting on the state lege’s winner-take-all desire.)
Other voting issues led off in the Emancipation world. Then, in the 1890s, populism led, briefly, anew, to district elections pushes. Not all gave the two “senatorial” votes to statewide winner; for example, Michigan created two half-state superdistricts.
Also, Texas' Tom DeLay led mid-decade redistricting? Michigan tried it in the 1890s, but Republicans couldn't agree among themselves as to what redistricting map they wanted. That’s a good sidebar of the book. More on that in a minute.
What’s missing? A popular vote push. That didn’t first arise until the 1970s. Before then, with Jim Crow, liberal northerners refused to surrender the power of their winner-take-all to Southern states disenfranchising Blacks. (And also refused to use the 14th Amendment’s Congressional reduction tool when having a Congressional majority.)
Keyssar also puts the lie to the idea that small states have been the ones to cling most to the Electoral College. Related? He shows how they’re not the biggest beneficiaries.
More than once in the past, some version of a constitutional amendment has passed one half of the Congress with the necessary 2/3 vote but fallen short in the other half.
As for the future? Republicans double down on winner take all and have made this an anti-democratic political position.
And, no, Trump’s threats and Shrub Bush’s actuality weren’t the first considered assault on the EC in modern times. Had either Hawaii, or especially, Ohio, been closer in 1976, Ford’s team had some plans sizzling on the back burner, Keyssar says.
November 1, 2024
This book is a deep dive into a process that feels extremelyyy outdated. I don’t know what I was thinking reading this right before the 2024 election because it pissed me off and stressed me tf out 🤣🤣. I didn’t read every page — some of the history was really dry (I recognize the importance but I prefer historical fiction 🫢) — but I read through the key sections and most of the chapters to understand the essentials. This book does a good job of explaining why the system is still hanging on, even though it’s insane to me that we still cling to it. If you want a much quicker & simpler breakdown, I’d recommend the podcast “How Does the Electoral College” work. But if you’re curious about the history & reasons behind it, this book definitely has the answers.
December 11, 2024
I am not sure I can ever find enough books that slam the electoral college system. It's my weakness. That said, it will never change in my lifetime.
January 9, 2021
Anyone who pays any attention to U.S. politics has to wonder, at least a little bit, WTF? when it comes to the electoral college. WHY do we need this? WHY does it exist? HOW is it fair that the people's choice sometimes doesn't become the leader of the country? After 17 hours of audiobook, during which I spaced out and missed details probably hundreds of times (because, seriously, who can listen to 17 hours of reasons why we still have the electoral college?) I can give some GENERAL reasons why we still have it:
1) Changing it requires a Constitutional amendment, and those are hard to come by
2) No one really knows what the consequences of changing it will be, and it's easier to live with the devil you know than deal with the devil you don't know
3) It's scary to spend political capital trying to change it if you're a politician because you won't be able to predict which way the political wind will be blowing at the end of your journey to change something as entrenched as the electoral college
4) National popular vote could not only end the two-party system, but could also make it so that there is such a plurality of candidates that the "winner" could have a very small number of votes
5) Eliminating the electoral college will affect lots of other things. Just one example is state control of elections. If we went to a national popular vote, what happens when one state has tighter voting requirements than another one? It seems like there would have to be federal control of elections, and that would be bad because... well, honestly, because of the (I think) outdated idea of the importance of states' rights.
I know, I know, our country was founded on that principle, and the founders were very leery of giving the federal government too much power. But when states have too much power, some very bad things persist in some states. Like... slavery? Anti-LGBTQ+ laws? Globalization is a thing. Americans are much more mobile than they used to be, and for most of us, our state is just where we happen to be living at the moment. Look, I am a progressive liberal Democrat and I believe that government is, overall both good and necessary to advance society forward, so I am in favor of a strong central government and I am NOT in favor of any form of government that allows civil rights issues to go unaddressed for decades. That is just not how a progressive country should be run, in my opinion.
Of course, like almost everything else crappy in U.S. history, the electoral college initially had something to do with slavery. Specifically, it allowed Southern slaveholding states to base their power in elections on the actual number of humans residing in their states as opposed to the number of non-slave humans in their states, which was much smaller. After slavery ended, even though black people were disenfranchised for 100 years, Southern states could still use their numbers to give them more electoral votes. (Talk about so monstrously unfair and wrong that it makes me sick!)
No one really knows for sure who the electoral college benefits. Small states? Large states? Rural states? Racial minorities? Members of all of these groups of people do not agree on who benefits, which is another reason why we still have the electoral college. As someone who lives in, and loves, urban areas, I can't see how it DOESN'T benefit rednecks -- I mean, rural states. The electoral college prevents "them" (immigrants, minorities, poor people) from taking over (i.e. from having their voices heard in proportion to their actual numbers in the country), so naturally those people who, in their own minds, represent "the REAL America" benefit by keeping it in place.
Interestingly, though, American voters have always preferred a national popular vote, sometimes as much as 75% in favor to 25% opposed. It appeals to the sense of fairness. The only thing standing in the way of eliminating the electoral college seems to be that no one QUITE CARES enough to spearhead a movement to eliminate it.
1) Changing it requires a Constitutional amendment, and those are hard to come by
2) No one really knows what the consequences of changing it will be, and it's easier to live with the devil you know than deal with the devil you don't know
3) It's scary to spend political capital trying to change it if you're a politician because you won't be able to predict which way the political wind will be blowing at the end of your journey to change something as entrenched as the electoral college
4) National popular vote could not only end the two-party system, but could also make it so that there is such a plurality of candidates that the "winner" could have a very small number of votes
5) Eliminating the electoral college will affect lots of other things. Just one example is state control of elections. If we went to a national popular vote, what happens when one state has tighter voting requirements than another one? It seems like there would have to be federal control of elections, and that would be bad because... well, honestly, because of the (I think) outdated idea of the importance of states' rights.
I know, I know, our country was founded on that principle, and the founders were very leery of giving the federal government too much power. But when states have too much power, some very bad things persist in some states. Like... slavery? Anti-LGBTQ+ laws? Globalization is a thing. Americans are much more mobile than they used to be, and for most of us, our state is just where we happen to be living at the moment. Look, I am a progressive liberal Democrat and I believe that government is, overall both good and necessary to advance society forward, so I am in favor of a strong central government and I am NOT in favor of any form of government that allows civil rights issues to go unaddressed for decades. That is just not how a progressive country should be run, in my opinion.
Of course, like almost everything else crappy in U.S. history, the electoral college initially had something to do with slavery. Specifically, it allowed Southern slaveholding states to base their power in elections on the actual number of humans residing in their states as opposed to the number of non-slave humans in their states, which was much smaller. After slavery ended, even though black people were disenfranchised for 100 years, Southern states could still use their numbers to give them more electoral votes. (Talk about so monstrously unfair and wrong that it makes me sick!)
No one really knows for sure who the electoral college benefits. Small states? Large states? Rural states? Racial minorities? Members of all of these groups of people do not agree on who benefits, which is another reason why we still have the electoral college. As someone who lives in, and loves, urban areas, I can't see how it DOESN'T benefit rednecks -- I mean, rural states. The electoral college prevents "them" (immigrants, minorities, poor people) from taking over (i.e. from having their voices heard in proportion to their actual numbers in the country), so naturally those people who, in their own minds, represent "the REAL America" benefit by keeping it in place.
Interestingly, though, American voters have always preferred a national popular vote, sometimes as much as 75% in favor to 25% opposed. It appeals to the sense of fairness. The only thing standing in the way of eliminating the electoral college seems to be that no one QUITE CARES enough to spearhead a movement to eliminate it.
November 9, 2024
Keyssar's book presents a somewhat dry analysis and ultimately draws conclusions that lack robust support.
He argues that the Electoral College is undemocratic because it can lead to a scenario where the winner of the popular vote does not assume the presidency. This interpretation misses a crucial aspect of the Electoral College's design: it was established to ensure that smaller states and rural areas have a voice in the electoral process. By allocating electoral votes based on population, candidates are encouraged to engage with a diverse array of voters across the nation, rather than focusing solely on urban centers.
Keyssar also characterizes the Electoral College as outdated and rooted in the interests of slave-holding states. This view oversimplifies its historical context; the system was created to balance power between large and small states and to facilitate a deliberative process in electing the president, thereby countering the potential for mob rule.
While he argues it has no benefits, the Electoral College actually plays a significant role in fostering coalition-building and national campaigns, safeguarding the interests of smaller states, and acting as a buffer against the vulnerabilities of direct democracy.
Along with the benefits his proposal would eliminate, his push for a national popular vote ignores the complexities of democratic reform. Implementing such a change would necessitate a challenging constitutional amendment and could result in unintended consequences, including heightened polarization, diminished representation for smaller states, and an increased risk of electoral manipulation.
In conclusion, the Electoral College remains a vital component of the American republic. It safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, promotes coalition-building, and mitigates the risk of voter fraud. While Keyssar's intentions seem commendable, his perspectives on this issue are ultimately misguided.
He argues that the Electoral College is undemocratic because it can lead to a scenario where the winner of the popular vote does not assume the presidency. This interpretation misses a crucial aspect of the Electoral College's design: it was established to ensure that smaller states and rural areas have a voice in the electoral process. By allocating electoral votes based on population, candidates are encouraged to engage with a diverse array of voters across the nation, rather than focusing solely on urban centers.
Keyssar also characterizes the Electoral College as outdated and rooted in the interests of slave-holding states. This view oversimplifies its historical context; the system was created to balance power between large and small states and to facilitate a deliberative process in electing the president, thereby countering the potential for mob rule.
While he argues it has no benefits, the Electoral College actually plays a significant role in fostering coalition-building and national campaigns, safeguarding the interests of smaller states, and acting as a buffer against the vulnerabilities of direct democracy.
Along with the benefits his proposal would eliminate, his push for a national popular vote ignores the complexities of democratic reform. Implementing such a change would necessitate a challenging constitutional amendment and could result in unintended consequences, including heightened polarization, diminished representation for smaller states, and an increased risk of electoral manipulation.
In conclusion, the Electoral College remains a vital component of the American republic. It safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, promotes coalition-building, and mitigates the risk of voter fraud. While Keyssar's intentions seem commendable, his perspectives on this issue are ultimately misguided.
January 7, 2021
"The idea of choosing a president through a nationwide popular election dates to the country's founding... The institution that the framers designed instead differed from a national popular vote in three critical aspects.
"The first was that it created a set of state elections and not a single national election; the system was structured to determine the preferences of states rather than those of the citizenry at large.
"The second was that elections were indirect: the people did not vote for presidential candidates but for intermediaries who then voted for presidential candidates.
"The third was that the Electoral College was not grounded in the principle that the votes of all individuals should count equally. The framers, acting out of perceived political necessity, chose to give extra weight to the votes of two groups of citizens: inhabitants of small states and white residents of states that had slavery.
"This last feature meant that, from the outset, the nation contained two sizable constituencies that would lose political influence if a national popular vote were ever adopted."
"The first was that it created a set of state elections and not a single national election; the system was structured to determine the preferences of states rather than those of the citizenry at large.
"The second was that elections were indirect: the people did not vote for presidential candidates but for intermediaries who then voted for presidential candidates.
"The third was that the Electoral College was not grounded in the principle that the votes of all individuals should count equally. The framers, acting out of perceived political necessity, chose to give extra weight to the votes of two groups of citizens: inhabitants of small states and white residents of states that had slavery.
"This last feature meant that, from the outset, the nation contained two sizable constituencies that would lose political influence if a national popular vote were ever adopted."
September 11, 2025
I valued this book for its educational value and I wasn't bored reading it, though it did take me a while to get through. It was interesting to explore how partisan opinion had changed on the electoral college - like for example, when women's right to vote was uneven, and how that resulted in some having stronger support for the electoral college because otherwise that vote would overwhelm the old status quo - but then similarly, Black voters in the south supporting the electoral college, which is in place for racist reasons, because their voting rights were so hideously obstructed without the VRA that the elector college was the only hope that they may have some voice.
The book does leave you with a sort of dull hopeless feeling though, because I my general takeaway is that though this system disenfranchises everyone, it won't ever change - changing it would require the party that benefited from its latest boondoggle to be the better angel and agree to relinquish any perks it might have for their state/party/power in favor of a truly democratic system, and history proves that those in power simply will not do that.
The book does leave you with a sort of dull hopeless feeling though, because I my general takeaway is that though this system disenfranchises everyone, it won't ever change - changing it would require the party that benefited from its latest boondoggle to be the better angel and agree to relinquish any perks it might have for their state/party/power in favor of a truly democratic system, and history proves that those in power simply will not do that.
April 18, 2022
This is about difficulty of amending the Constitution as it is about the Electoral College. And although the author does not go into detail, it made me think about how states acquired so much autonomy and power. The Electoral College was a compromise in order to make the states happy, particularly the Southern states, who somehow pulled the three-fifths compromise out of the air. Not only did it increase their legislative representation but increased their influence in the Electoral College. Since then, Southern conservatives (and small states) have tried to maintain the status quo despite popular demand for a national popular vote (or electoral reform). All of the attempts of change are chronicled here from the 19th Century to notable movements in the 1940s, 1960s and 1970s, and even running up to the 2016 election.
Ironically, one of the last concerted efforts to push forward a national popular vote was in 1977 when then-senator Joe Biden, representing Delaware, voted against it. I wonder if he regretted that going into the 2020 presidential election?
Ironically, one of the last concerted efforts to push forward a national popular vote was in 1977 when then-senator Joe Biden, representing Delaware, voted against it. I wonder if he regretted that going into the 2020 presidential election?
April 21, 2023
Generation after generation, different groups who were divided over different issues, yet all believed that the Electoral College gave them a political advantage had the power to block any attempt to reform or abolish the archaic, undemocratic fudge that may hand Fascists power, ultimately destroying American *Democracy.* And all because the 'Founding Fathers' gave the minority of slaveholding states far too much power in order to prevent a walkout. ...There, I just saved you more than 17 hours.
Indeed, I honestly can't believe that so many Americans worship their Constitution (in some cases, literally believing that it's a 'New Bible' inspired by God) when so much of it is 'Compromised' in both senses of the term. But as for the book itself though, while there is nothing really wrong with it and it's a vital resource for anyone who is deeply interested in the subject and needs all of the dry, pedantic details, for the casual reader, it is far too long, dry and pedantic to be worth more than three stars.
Indeed, I honestly can't believe that so many Americans worship their Constitution (in some cases, literally believing that it's a 'New Bible' inspired by God) when so much of it is 'Compromised' in both senses of the term. But as for the book itself though, while there is nothing really wrong with it and it's a vital resource for anyone who is deeply interested in the subject and needs all of the dry, pedantic details, for the casual reader, it is far too long, dry and pedantic to be worth more than three stars.
February 27, 2024
The title says it all: how does such an unusual regime for electing the most powerful person on Earth stay for so long? With remarkable clarity, Alexander Keyssar lays out a series of potential reasons for its perseverance.
If you’re surprised to learn that racism played a role, you don’t know squat about American history… the South tended to view electoral reform as a threat to its outsized power in choosing the president. With regards to a national popular vote, Democrats and later Republicans (correctly) recognized that the low turnout caused by Jim Crow would kneecap the region’s voice. And any attempts to *bolster* the South, like the Lodge-Gossett plan, were shot down by northern liberals and African American activists.
Contrary to popular belief, smaller states have never really been a decisive roadblock (or much of a hindrance period) to reform. Opposition was frequently channeled in a geographic section (south) or political party (currently Republicans), and that was more than enough to sink the campaign. Partisanship and simple math has generated a good deal of the opposition; take the district elections law passed by Michigan Democrats before the 1892 election. Dems benefited from the few favorable districts in an otherwise Republican state. The arguments for and against had little to do with the merits of the law, and was overturned when Republicans took back the state legislature.
I will refrain from giving a further summary, but the book does an excellent job doing what it says it will do. A needed history lesson, even if the chances of a change in the electoral rules feel remote at the moment.
If you’re surprised to learn that racism played a role, you don’t know squat about American history… the South tended to view electoral reform as a threat to its outsized power in choosing the president. With regards to a national popular vote, Democrats and later Republicans (correctly) recognized that the low turnout caused by Jim Crow would kneecap the region’s voice. And any attempts to *bolster* the South, like the Lodge-Gossett plan, were shot down by northern liberals and African American activists.
Contrary to popular belief, smaller states have never really been a decisive roadblock (or much of a hindrance period) to reform. Opposition was frequently channeled in a geographic section (south) or political party (currently Republicans), and that was more than enough to sink the campaign. Partisanship and simple math has generated a good deal of the opposition; take the district elections law passed by Michigan Democrats before the 1892 election. Dems benefited from the few favorable districts in an otherwise Republican state. The arguments for and against had little to do with the merits of the law, and was overturned when Republicans took back the state legislature.
I will refrain from giving a further summary, but the book does an excellent job doing what it says it will do. A needed history lesson, even if the chances of a change in the electoral rules feel remote at the moment.
November 9, 2025
This is the book I’ve been wanting to read. I’ve long wanted to learn more about the history of voting in the United States. The author provides great detail around the history of the electoral college, which is undemocratic beyond belief, and broad information about voting history in general. The fact is that the electoral college was created and continues to exist solely for reasons of partisan politics and racial discrimination. Its continued existence is a stain on the United States. Notice as well that this is one more area where the U.S. South is on the wrong side and causing trauma to the United States. I concur with the author that it is long past time to rid ourselves of this anachronistic abomination.
November 3, 2024
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Mr. Book just finished Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College?, by Alexander Keysar.
This was an excellent look at the history of the electoral college. Among the highlights were its creation, how early on flaws became apparent, the problems with winner take all in states, the problems and complexities of the 1824 and 1876 elections, the efforts at reform over the years, how white supremacy took away the chances of reform in 1969-70 and other efforts to reform the system.
The book is filled with good arguments and data opposing the electoral college.
I give this book an A+.
Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews, and Goodreads.
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on August 22, 2020. He finished rereading it on November 2, 2024.
Mr. Book just finished Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College?, by Alexander Keysar.
This was an excellent look at the history of the electoral college. Among the highlights were its creation, how early on flaws became apparent, the problems with winner take all in states, the problems and complexities of the 1824 and 1876 elections, the efforts at reform over the years, how white supremacy took away the chances of reform in 1969-70 and other efforts to reform the system.
The book is filled with good arguments and data opposing the electoral college.
I give this book an A+.
Goodreads requires grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A+ equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews, and Goodreads.
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on August 22, 2020. He finished rereading it on November 2, 2024.
July 31, 2023
A fascinating, well-reseached, balanced read....I obviously am biased because I love political science... a lehman might struggle with this book because of all the arguments mentioned for or against abolishing the Electoral College, along with said arguments' details. However, kudos to Dr. Keyssar for taking on this topic, and producing an elaborative, specific work on a subject that people often wonder about, but choose not to dig deeper into.
November 8, 2021
I started this book last January, and read it in between other titles. It is well written and comprehensive. I found the subject matter, not the writing, rather tedious, at times. But that should not be construed as the fault of the author.
December 18, 2021
A bit too academic and detailed for me...was maybe naively expecting a lighter lift. As a result just skimmed chapters of interest.
Currently reading
January 20, 2022324.63 K448 2020
March 22, 2024
dry as dust legal history. Some political history too, but nothing about elections, and no psephology at all. Very repeptitive too, and with not many original points. A hard slog, all in all
January 13, 2025
Just the last chapter and conclusion would have been sufficient.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews