Looming Battle Over Electoral College
High profile Democrats are already agitating to do away with the Electoral College. Given that in 2024 Donald Trump won both the Electoral and the popular vote this would on the surface appear to be a non-issue. It is, in fact, a virtual existential issue for Democrats’ chances of winning the White House in 2032 and beyond.
The United States Constitution requires a decennial census following which congressional representation is reapportioned to account for population shifts. This periodic adjustment ensures that each state receives its share of U.S. House members the total number of which remains static.
Americans are voting with their feet. Recent census data shows significant population gains mostly in so-called “red states” including Texas and Florida, while “blue states” including California and New York are experiencing population loss or at best population stagnation.
The fastest growing states from 2020 to 2025 include Idaho (10.4%) mostly due to migration from California and Washington; Florida (8.9%) adding over 1.9 million residents; Texas (7%) an increase of over 2 million residents; and South Carolina which grew 8.8%. Conversely, California and New York experienced the biggest population losses followed by Hawaii, Mississippi and Louisiana.
Results for Democrats are grim. Depending on the methodology used to calculate the reapportionment of congressional seats, and assuming current population trends continue over the next four years, Texas would gain four seats; Florida would add three seats; Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah and Idaho would each gain one congressional representative. California would sustain a loss of four congressional seats, New York one-two, Illinois 1-two; Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island would lose one seat each.
Based on results of the last three presidential elections, and looking at reapportionment models using varied methodologies, Republican states will gain about ten seats with a corresponding ten seat loss in Democrat states for a swing of 20 congressional seats. Even with the extreme gerrymandering currently employed by Democrats the changing map would make it difficult for that party to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Each state receives one elector for each member of congress from that state: two for its U.S. Senators and one for each House member. Thus, beginning with the 2032 Presidential election the Electoral map changes dramatically. The New York Times applied the potential new apportionment to results of the 2024 election and that produced a 320-218 Republican Electoral vote victory.
The shift in Electoral vote apportionment makes it significantly more difficult for a Democratic Presidential nominee to arrive at the 270 Electoral votes needed to win the White House. Democrats, looking ahead, are already pushing for what they term the “national popular vote.” Their concerns are valid given the Democratic nominee won both the 2000 (Al Gore) and 2016 (Hilary Clinton) popular vote but lost the Electoral vote to George W. Bush and Donald Trump respectively.
But the Electoral College exists for a reason. Without it the era of “swing states” would end as candidates would focus on high population states such as California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and, yes, Pennsylvania. Small state voters would become largely irrelevant.
The Founding Fathers debated various mechanisms for electing a president include consideration of direct popular vote, having congress chose the president or election of the president by state legislators. The Electoral college emerged as a compromise as no other proposal received enough support to be adopted by the delegates at the Constitutional convention.
As first adopted each elector cast two votes for president with the highest vote getter being elected president and the second highest vote getter elected Vice President. That resulted in a Constitutional crisis in the election of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr battled to a tie. The 12th amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1804 providing for separate votes for president and vice president.
Today, even as it was when the Constitution was written, there continues to be an imperative to ensure that each of the 50 states have a fair and balanced say in the election of the nation’s chief executive. Although flawed, the system should not be tampered with for the sake of momentary political expediency. It is a process that should stand for all time.
(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly American Radio Journal and Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)
Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.
