In The Joust, witness two opinions columnists have a battle of ideas: one defends the affirmative, and the other writes the opposition. Be sure to read to see who will win The Joust!

---

Yes

By: Samuel Seward

The Electoral College was birthed from compromise. The Founding Fathers, fearing tyranny, corruption between the legislative and executive branches and the lack of political sense from the qualified American voting class, decided on the Electoral College as a best-of-both-worlds agreement. It has served as a capable, if confusing, solution to the election process in the U.S.

Yet, the failings of the Electoral College have become glaringly obvious in our time of constant political information, and it's time for an overhaul.

The primary issue with the Electoral College is the importance of the swing states. Elections are often decided by tens of thousands of votes in these states, despite the popular vote not reflecting this tightness.

For example, President Joseph R. Biden won the 2020 popular vote by more than seven million voters, yet if 21,461 voters in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin had voted for former President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. would have a different administration.

Those swing state voters became 329 times more valuable, flying in the face of the "one person, one vote" mantra that Presidential candidates drum up during campaign cycles. Furthermore, five times the winner of the Electoral College lost the popular vote, all because the "losing" candidate gained their popular majority in the wrong places.

Dismantling the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote is not plausible. Indirect voting for leaders, as frustrating as it can be, also prevents radical factions from gaining steam and taking power via the popular vote.

With a popular vote overhaul being out of the question, a new measure has taken into account the inefficiencies of the Electoral College while still preventing radical factions from taking power, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

The NPVIC, despite the mouthful of a title, provides a simple solution to the Electoral College problem. Electors currently vote for whichever party wins the state, causing the imbalance of voter power in swing states compared to 'blue wall' or 'red sea' states, and why candidates primarily campaign in swing states instead of these safe states.

The NPVIC recognizes the elector system, but the electors would vote for the popular vote winner rather than the winner of that particular state. Swing states become irrelevant, and all voters become theoretically equal. Most importantly, the actual winner of the presidential popular vote would be guaranteed the Presidency.

---

No

By: Kiran Subramanian

The Electoral College has been a sore spot in U.S. politics for a very long time. It was created as a compromise between the founding fathers, who were figuring out how to determine the election of the President. Nowadays, people do not hold positive views about the system.

Many complaints about the Electoral College have arisen, ranging from its creation of swing states to its anti-democratic perceptions.

Most of these criticisms are pretty flawed. Criticisms of the Electoral College creating swing states neglect to consider that these are rarely constant. For example, back in 2004, states like Tennessee and West Virginia, which were considered swing states, now consistently vote for the Republican candidate.

This can also be seen in states like Arizona and Georgia, which are now considered swing states, while traditional ones like Florida are no longer considered part of this group.

This means that candidates must constantly work to create broad coalitions rather than just relying on riling up their base in a friendly state.

Regarding the anti-democratic claims, the Electoral College has largely reflected the majority's will. Cases in which the winner of the Electoral College did not win the popular vote have largely been the result of confounding factors like corruption and archaic voting systems, factors that are either not relevant or could impact the popular vote as well.

Even still, these criticisms of the Electoral College have led to the creation of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

This compact would mandate that states signed on would pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. While a clever way to circumvent the Electoral College, it would ultimately lead to more problems than it purports to solve.

For the people concerned that the Electoral College disenfranchises voters, the NPVIC would enshrine this. For example, in the 2004 Presidential Election, incumbent George W. Bush secured 3,012,166 more votes than Democratic nominee John Kerry.

If New Jersey were part of the NPVIC during this election, all 15 of its electors would be pledged to Bush, even though Kerry received nearly 250,000 more votes. It seems ludicrous to even entertain the notion that a Texan or North Carolinian's vote should have the same weight in dictating where New Jersey’s electoral votes go, but a New Jerseyan would not have the same impact on either Texas' or North Carolina's electors.

The problems become even deeper when considering the popular vote. Since states are in charge of their election laws, there is a patchwork of different rules. This sets a dangerous precedent that gives both parties more claims to challenge elections. Republicans could make claims that Democratic-run states have padded their numbers, while Democrats could claim that Republicans engaged in voter suppression to boost their numbers.

The impact could lead to electoral battles in the House of Representatives or at the Supreme Court level, potentially hurting the peaceful transfer of power.

While it may seem beneficial for states to sign onto the NPVIC, it disenfranchises its citizens and invites instability to a largely well-functioning system.

---

Samuel Seward is a senior at the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in political science and minoring in English. Seward’s column, “Dead Air,” runs on alternate Mondays.

Kiran Subramanian is a senior at the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in political science and economics.

Columns, cartoons, letters and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.

YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Letters to the editor must be between 350 and 600 words. Commentaries must be between 600 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com and eic@dailytargum.com to be considered for publication.