Third parties deserve a space in the Electoral College

At its inception, the Electoral College was intended to prevent large states from unilaterally deciding the next president. The Founding Fathers were fearful of the development of political parties, creating the college to introduce a level of state-by-state equity in national elections. This system made sense 250 years ago, but the country has changed since then. Today, it’s merely a source of national factionalism.

The United States has a diverse population with different political views. As a result of the Electoral College, candidates are incentivized to strategically pander to only some views to drive turnout on their side of the aisle. This leaves many Americans feeling disenfranchised and unrepresented.

The main flaw in the Electoral College is that it operates by a “First Past the Post” framework. Under this system, whichever candidate receives the most votes in any state will get all of that state’s electors. This means that “swing states” receive disproportionate focus on the campaign trail.

Swing states are the small number of states that are not reliably Democratic or Republican — they “swing” for the Democratic or Republican candidate every four years. Because neither party would receive 270 electoral votes without them, they play a crucial role in presidential elections. 

The concept of a swing state leads to many incongruences in electoral practice. If you are a Republican living in a reliably Democratic state or vice versa, your vote virtually doesn’t matter. Additionally, candidates exhaust an inordinate amount of time, money and campaign resources in these states, and politicians are forced to cater exclusively to their needs. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are swing states and all reside in the Rust Belt region. As such, former President Donald Trump made increasing tariffs a main part of his policy agenda, aiming specifically at Rust Belt swing states that are losing manufacturing jobs to drum up support, despite the fact that these policies could cause inflation in the rest of the country. 

We must move toward a system that apportions electors based on state-by-state performance by each candidate. Candidates who perform well enough in each state are assigned a certain number of delegates, with delegates apportioned based on the percentage of votes won.

For example, in 2020, about 6 million people voted for Trump in the Democratic stronghold of California. However, because President Joe Biden garnered 11 million votes in the state, every elector for California went to him. In this case, the votes of 6 million Americans were essentially nullified because they lived in a state with 11 million Democrats. 

Apportioning the 55 Californian electors in accordance with how many votes each candidate won would have allowed Trump to receive roughly 20 electoral votes in the state that cast the largest number of votes for him. This would also mean that Texas, which has the second highest number of Democratic votes cast, would have had some electoral votes go to Biden. This apportionment would put swing states and their politics under less of a microscope and allow politicians to focus on policies that affect all parts of the nation.

As our electoral system has evolved into one of two parties, it is increasingly difficult for any alternative candidate to win any state during a presidential election. Because each political party has solidly defined coalitions, a third-party candidate would need to draw equally from both Democrats and Republicans, which is unlikely. 

The lack of infrastructure supporting alternative candidates matters because there could be a legitimate appetite for third parties in national elections. A majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of both parties. Earlier this election cycle, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. polled three points shy of businessman Ross Perot’s 1992 performance. If a more viable alternative candidate were to present itself in the future, our system needs to be ready.

Another issue that apportioning electoral votes would solve is the wide net that current parties cast in order to try and win the presidency. Current Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris has attained many endorsements from current Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, in an effort to win a majority of votes in key swing states. Also supporting Harris are progressive politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). 

Progressives and neoconservatives like Cheney are completely different in almost all of their viewpoints. Apportioning electors would allow each of these groups to run their own candidate, as opposed to supporting one candidate who can attract the greatest amount of votes to defeat a common enemy.

The Electoral College, while designed to balance power among states, has led to deep-rooted problems in our democracy. It reinforces a rigid two-party system and marginalizes third-party candidates, undermining voter representation. By apportioning electors based on state performance, we can create a more inclusive system that accurately reflects the diverse political landscape of the country. This approach could reduce the outsized influence of swing states and encourage candidates to address national concerns rather than catering to a few battleground regions. Reforming the Electoral College is essential to ensure a more democratic and representative electoral process.

Gabe Efros is an Opinion Analyst who writes about the American political climate, on and off campus. He can be reached at gefros@umich.edu.

Related articles