Today is National Voter Registration Day in the US. At a time when the country’s electoral system is under more scrutiny than ever, Fionnbharr Rodgers looks at one of its most contentious elements.

The 2016 US presidential election was the fifth time since the foundation of the state that the candidate who lost the popular vote, went on to win the election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by the fairly comfortable number of three million, while Donald Trump won the Electoral College by 304 to 227, a larger margin than George W. Bush managed from either of his presidential contests.

The weeks between election night and the formal meeting of the electors saw a series of calls for Republican members of the College to vote against their state, and not vote for Donald Trump. A Unite for America video starring The West Wing cast members Martin Sheen and Richard Schiff summed up the argument against Trump, with Sheen citing the 68th essay of The Federalist Papers, believed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton, which states that it is the duty of the electors to choose a candidate ‘to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.’ Hamilton wrote that no individual with ‘too great devotion of the President in office,’ nor by extension any of those on the ballot, should be permitted to serve as an elector.

Sheen et al were not asking the electors to vote for Clinton, but merely to not vote for Trump. If no candidate manages to reach the required 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives would then be tasked with electing the President of the United States, as was the case in 1824 when Andrew Jackson won a plurality of both the popular and the electoral vote, yet no candidate had an overall majority. Due to backroom machinations between Jackson’s main opponent John Quincy Adams and Speaker of the House Henry Clay, Jackson was denied the presidency.

Though 2016’s Republican-controlled House would likely have voted for Trump to be president, the fact that Representatives could have been lobbied may have been enough to propel Clinton into Office. But that, of course, is speculation, and electoral credibility requires clarity.

The Unite for America celebrities made the case that the purpose of the Electoral College was to ensure that the powers of the Executive did not fall into the hands of a demagogue unqualified for the role. The fact that a majority of electors went on to vote for Trump reinvigorated calls for the College to be abolished. It’s difficult to deny the validity of such calls, as there is no tangible evidence that the College serves any of its original purposes. Arguably it is in danger of causing more harm than good.

The main argument for retaining the Electoral College is that it ensures that all states of the union are given a voice in presidential elections, and that candidates must speak to all fifty if they wish to be elected.

Firstly, this is blatantly untrue. It’s an increasingly well-known fact of modern US elections that only a handful of states really matter at all for a candidate with aspirations towards the Oval Office. It is assumed that states such as California are so safely in one camp that it would be a waste of time – and, especially, money – to campaign there; while states such as Wyoming, with its three electoral votes, are not going to break the appointive bank. The result is that elections, as in 2016, end up being fought in a number of pivotal states such as Pennsylvania and Florida, which have a history of voting within the margins.

There is also a phenomenon where some states have become mythologised for their ability to pick the winner, and as a result have an over-inflated sense of worth bestowed upon them.

‘As Ohio goes, so goes the nation,’ is the mantra of the general election, in reference to the fact that the demographics of Ohio make it a microcosm of the country as a whole, and the winner of every presidential race since 1964 has won the state. New Hampshire, meanwhile, as the first state to hold its primary, has long been a great source of momentum – and again, money – for candidates seeking their party’s nomination. The result of this is that voters in the Granite state (as well as in Iowa, their partner in kingmaking as host of the opening caucus) are acutely aware of how important their vote is to the candidates, and expect to be personally courted.

Secondly, the suggestion that the Electoral College ensures all states an equal footing is laughable, and rather undemocratic, since it really ensures that some sparsely-populated states, such as Wyoming or the Dakotas are over-represented. Electoral votes are apportioned via votes to states according to their number of Representatives in the House, based on population, and the number of Senators, of which every state has two. Washington DC, which is not a state, is given three votes as if it has two Senators and a Congressman.

The fact that every state holds two Senators is not only disproportionate but results in skewed power in the Electoral College. California, with its population of over 39 million has the same number of votes in the Upper Chamber as Wyoming, which has a smaller population than the greater metropolitan area of Belfast.

Twice in fifteen years the Electoral College has served to inhibit the democratic process, and there is little evidence to believe it does anything else to support it. It is therefore entirely reasonable for a conversation to be started in favour of abolition.

You might also enjoy these recent articles on US politics:

Democracy could leave Trump running scared

And then there were ten… for now