Josh Holzer, a professor of political science, writes in the Ohio Capital Journal a piece entitled “No country still uses an electoral college − except the US”. Critics love to bash the Electoral College as some archaic relic. But as Charles Cooke noted back in 2022, “The Electoral College is not the outlier its critics insist it is.” As he wrote, most ‘advanced democracies’ don’t elect their leaders by direct popular vote either.
Think about it. In the U.S., we trade the chance to vote directly for the president for a system that balances regional interests. We accept that sometimes the candidate with fewer overall votes wins because we value the role of states. Guess what? So do the Brits, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders. They, like us, end up with their executives by casting local votes. This is the way that most advanced democracies elect their executives, as Cooke pointed out, “…especially those that based themselves in some way on English notions of representation.”
If we’re so eager to ditch the Electoral College for being “undemocratic,” perhaps we should also question the legitimacy of some of the most beloved progressive world leaders of recent times. Consider Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern, Anthony Albanese, Keir Starmer—darlings of liberal politics. None of them was elected through a nationwide popular vote when they were elected as prime minister.
And it’s not just them. Countries like Germany, India, Sweden, Norway, Denmark—the list goes on—all advanced democracies that don’t elect their executives via a direct popular vote. So unless we’re ready to label these nations as undemocratic and their leaders as illegitimate, perhaps we should rethink our stance on the Electoral College.
Now, let’s flip the script. Countries that do elect their executives through direct popular votes have given us Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdoğan, Bashar al-Assad, Robert Mugabe. Not exactly the poster children for thriving democracy.
The Electoral College isn’t the villain it’s painted to be. Maybe the problem isn’t the system itself but our unwillingness to understand its complexities—and the risks of the alternatives we think we want. Let’s be careful what we wish for. Democracy is more nuanced than simply “popular vote good, Electoral College bad.” Before we start pointing fingers, perhaps we should consider the diverse electoral systems that exist worldwide. Otherwise, we might find ourselves championing methods that have led to tyranny while dismissing those that have safeguarded democracy. After all, in the broader context of global governance, the Electoral College isn’t the oddball its critics insist it is.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.