As the nation reflects on the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election, the conversation about the Electoral College has gained significant traction, with various opinions on whether the system is fair, representative and effective.

Local political watchers weighed in with their opinions on the current voting system and discussed the pros and cons of the Electoral College because of the recent discussions surrounding the issue.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted from Aug. 26–Sept. 2, 2024, revealed that 63% of Americans would prefer the presidential election winner to be the candidate with the most votes nationally. Meanwhile, 35% favor retaining the Electoral College.

Students enrolled in the university’s States and Federal System class sent a letter to the editor discussing the pros of the Electoral College. The letter argued that the system quickens and solidifies results while still maintaining peace.

“The rules save us money. The rules save us time. The rules are more peaceful,” said Dr. Neal Coates, chair of The Department of Government and Criminal Justice. “We want there to be a resolution in a timely fashion that doesn’t cost a whole lot of money or cost any blood.”

Although abolishing the system was not a significant focus in either of the presidential candidates’ campaigns, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris wanted to make changes.

“Trump sent an emissary to Nebraska to ask them if they would reconsider how their electoral college votes were calculated,” Coates said.

Nebraska and Maine are the only states that do not use the winner-takes-all system. Republicans pushed for Nebraska to change its system so that the statewide winner would receive all five electoral votes. 

“Harris and Walz both made comments very near in time that they would be open to revisiting the electoral college process,” Coates said.

Many Americans support revisiting the system. Thaddeus Stringer, president of the Kingdom Justice Coalition and senior global studies major from Houston, said he is not a fan of the system for a few reasons. 

One of his reasons is that it gives disproportionate power to smaller states, meaning that some states with smaller populations have equal power to states with larger populations.

Stringer said the winner-take-all system in 48 states contributes to a sense of voter insignificance.

“For example, Texas will probably never go blue and because all electoral votes go to the winner, it can contribute to the sentiment that votes don’t matter,” Stringer said.

However, Stringer doesn’t believe the nation should rely solely on the majority vote, noting that the Electoral College protects rural communities’ interests.

Coates said there’s a historical rationale for the system. In 1787, during the Philadelphia Convention, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated how a president should be elected. 

“States are the antithesis of a king,” Coates said. “And we certainly did not want a president who was going to have king-like powers.”

Marlee Foster, president of College Republicans and sophomore kinesiology major from Westcliffe, Colorado, explained that without the Electoral College, big cities would dominate elections, leaving rural states underrepresented.

“It allows for the country not to tyrannize the minority, so if we had a popular vote system, not the electoral college vote we wouldn’t have the ability to really marginalize the country,” said Foster.

More than half of Americans think the winner of the popular vote should win the presidency. There have been five instances in U.S. history where the popular vote winner differed from the Electoral College winner, the most recent being in the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the presidency with 306 electoral votes. After this election, the Electoral College system received pushback.

“The most regular criticism has come from persons who are losing,” Coates said. “It’s also important to remember what it means to be a good loser and to concede gracefully.”

Some believe the Electoral College system diminishes the value of individual votes. If the winner is decided by the Electoral College, what’s the point of voting? Coates said that popular votes matter on a state level, as they determine how each state allocates its votes.

He added that while the system isn’t perfect, it remains fair, allowing smaller or rural states to maintain influence and ensuring that smaller groups of people are heard and not overshadowed by large cities or major societal groups.

“The Electoral College actually protects minority groups and that is a hallmark of American democracy,” Coates said.

The Associated Press called states within hours on election day and these votes were certified weeks later.

“There’s no reason to think they’re not valid because of the way the numbers are getting reported to the various secretaries of state and the chief election officer of every state,” Coates said.

Coates said he doesn’t expect any serious effort to change the system, citing its fairness and effectiveness in calculating and representing votes from each state.