Three progressive Democratic senators have unveiled a constitutional amendment that aims to abolish the Electoral College, five weeks after Donald Trump stormed to victory in the presidential election by sweeping the battleground states.
Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont presented their bill on Monday, saying it was time to “restore democracy” by doing away with the college system altogether and giving primacy to the popular vote, the total number of ballots cast by the American electorate.
“In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It’s that simple,” said Schatz.
“No one’s vote should count for more based on where they live. The Electoral College is outdated and it’s undemocratic. It’s time to end it.”
Currently, the Electoral College carries the day, an institution established under Article Two of the US Constitution that grants each state a given number of electors in proportion to the size of its congressional delegation. For example, a populous state like California is worth 54 votes but North Dakota just three.
With 528 Electoral College votes available in total, a majority of 270 is required for a candidate to win the White House.
On November 5, Trump and JD Vance secured a commanding victory of 312 to 226 over their Democratic rivals Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
Schatz, Durbin and Welch now say they are concerned that in two presidential elections already this century – George W Bush’s win over Al Gore in 2000 and Trump’s over Hillary Clinton in 2016 – Republican candidates have entered the Oval Office without picking up the majority of votes cast.
Durbin, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the present system “disenfranchises millions of Americans.”
“In 2000, before the general election, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College,” he continued.
“I still believe today that it’s time to retire this 18th century invention.”
Welch added: “Our democracy is at its strongest when everyone’s voice is heard – and right now our elections aren’t as representative as they should be because of the outdated and flawed Electoral College.”
Their proposal would not have had any bearing on the outcome this year, however, given that Trump and Vance also won the popular vote, scoring 77,300,739 ballots to 75,014,534 for Harris and Walz.
But that gap is, relatively speaking, much narrower than the 82-point difference between their respective Electoral College scores.
The loss of the Electoral College – which places a distorting emphasis on campaigning in the so-called swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Nevada – would have greatly reshaped the 2024 race and allowed Harris and Walz to lean into shoring up support in Democratic bastions like New York, Illinois and California.
Their doing so would, in turn, have prompted Trump and Vance to devote their energies to large red states like Texas, Florida and other southern strongholds.
Democrats like Harris adviser David Plouffe have taken to complaining in the wake of her defeat that it is becoming increasingly difficult for their presidential candidates to win battleground states because of the conflict between the centrist arguments they need to make to uncommitted or conservative-leaning voters and the more progressive policies the party’s base expects them to advocate for during the primaries.
“It’s always worth reminding people: It’s really hard for Democrats to win battleground states, OK?” Plouffe told Pod Save America last month.
“Let’s look at Pennsylvania: 25 percent of the electorate is liberal, roughly, 34 percent is conservative,” he explained.
“So in every battleground state, there’s more conservatives than liberals.”
