South Middlesex Times

The president and vice president of the United States are elected through the Electoral College, a process that has been a subject of debate for many years. Katherine McCabe, an associate professor at Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, and William Field, a teaching professor in the same department, offer insights into the origins, functioning, and controversies surrounding this system.

William Field explains that the Electoral College was initially designed to serve three purposes: "First was to empower states where enslavement was legal... Second was to raise the relevance of the smaller states... Third was to simplify the presidential selection process." While some original reasons have become obsolete with universal suffrage, he notes that "one cannot create a victorious coalition by winning every vote in the 10 most populous states while ignoring the rest of the country."

Katherine McCabe describes how votes cast in state elections direct electors on how to vote during their meeting. A candidate needs 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win. She notes that "each state and the District of Columbia have at least three electors," with more populous states having more. In most states, all electoral votes go to the candidate who wins a plurality; however, Maine and Nebraska can split their votes.

Field highlights criticism against this system: "The main argument against the Electoral College system is that it is very possible to win the presidency without winning a majority of votes cast." He points out instances from past elections where candidates won despite losing the popular vote.

Reform proposals include abolishing or modifying this system. Field mentions efforts like "the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact," which would bind electors to follow national popular vote outcomes once enough states join.

McCabe discusses how smaller states may have greater influence due to additional electoral votes per senator regardless of population size. This means voters in less populous states may have more sway than those in larger ones like New Jersey. She also notes that battleground states receive more campaign attention compared to solidly partisan ones such as New Jersey.