This election season has been historic in so many ways, but one of the most controversial is the results of the Electoral College that did not match the popular vote.

I would like to preface this by saying that I am not a political expert, but I have been very invested in this election, as I'm sure many of you reading this could also claim. My aim here is generally nonpartisan. All sides have had some disagreement as to whether or not the Electoral College still works in our current political environment. I seek primarily to open the windows to look at this system of election and evaluate whether or not it really still works--not to contradict any past election outcome.

To understand the Electoral College as it functions today, we must reflect on the very root of our country. When the United States of America was holding elections in the country's infancy, the union was just as diverse as it is today. There were 13 original states that varied greatly in the kind of people that inhabited them. In the northernmost state of New Hampshire, the greatest means of procuring a living involved hunting, fishing, or forestry, while in the southernmost state of Georgia, people lived on sprawling plantations and farmed cotton and tobacco. Not only was the voting climate of each state vastly different, they had very little connection to each other. There was no internet, no television, and travel was slow, and the Founding Fathers were rightfully afraid that a majority popular vote would have the potential for oppression. They had to create a multi-step system to ensure that one group of people couldn't hold a rule by tyranny over citizens with totally different lives and viewpoints.

The United States today has undergone many changes, but it is still incredibly diverse. Its demographics include those living in cities, in suburbs, in rural communities, those who are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, agnostic, or atheist, those working white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, are disabled or otherwise unable to work, those with doctorates and those without a high school diploma, those who are LGBTQ+, those who want to get married, or have children, or neither, or both, and people from all races and cultures and countries of origin. That is not an exhaustive list, and the diversity of our country is staggering. So perhaps it makes sense that we should keep the Electoral College as a means of protecting the citizens of the United States from themselves.

There are several problems with the Electoral College, however, and one is the reign of the two-party system. And I absolutely mean "reign" in the sense that it is similar to a monarchy. The dissension that the two-party system creates is at a fever pitch. While several third party candidates ran in this election, and even though the election year started off with Republicans and Democrats from all ideologies vying in the primaries, the decades-long grip of the two-party extremes caused citizens all over the country to ditch votes of conscience or plead with others to do the same. It was also a problem in the 2012 election, although perhaps to a much lesser extent. Even though people wanted to believe that there was something other than the status quo and that there were candidates who really represented the people, many votes were cast simply out of fear of the other extreme. What kind of democracy is that?

The Founding Fathers warned repeatedly against a two-party system. They didn't favor parties in general, but thought that a two-party system was especially dangerous. George Washington said in his 1796 Farewell Address:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

Unfortunately the citizens of our young country were so polarized that many of the Founding Fathers even chose to embrace the two-party system within a few decades. Ever since then the two-party system has appeared to be mostly inevitable, with the occasional shift of power. The Electoral College merely entrenches that polarization, and it makes it incredibly difficult for outlying parties to gain any traction.

The Electoral College consists of Electors who are chosen by each political party, and there are provisions in place that generally keep them loyal to their respective party. The number of electors equals the two senators from each state plus the number of representatives each state has in Congress. The District of Columbia has three electoral votes. When a state participates in the general election, the winner of the popular vote in that state obtains all of that state's electoral votes. This winner take all system has both advantages and disadvantages, but the biggest problem is that it silences the voices of many different kinds of voters, independent of political party.

We can use this past election as a prime example. The state of California, which had a voter turnout of over 9 million people, currently holds the most electoral votes of at 55 out of the total 538. Roughly 60%, or almost 6 million people, voted for Hillary Clinton, and although the electoral votes for the state of California all went to Hillary Clinton, their favored candidate still lost. By the same token, had Hillary Clinton won the Electoral College and California's electoral votes, the other 3 million people in California may have said, "Why should I bother casting my vote when my state leans strongly left?"

The Electoral College also strongly discourages the introduction of third parties, a phenomenon that has worked well in Europe for years, but that America can't seem to get a handle on. Voters in the past decade have been so eager to sink their teeth into a third party candidate and are often left feeling disenfranchised when their voices can't secure an electoral vote. There are only a handful of times that a third party candidate has secured a few states' electoral votes, and precisely none where a third party candidate was able to win the election. The change from within that the American people seem so desperate for is unattainable under the Electoral College.

I used to say that every vote matters, but after some evaluation of the current system I no longer hold that to be true. With the presence of Swing States (states in which the popular vote could swing either way) that are ever changing, it can be hard to predict where electoral votes will add up. It is a complete gamble as to whether your one vote will influence the way your states' Electors cast their vote, and many people feel that their vote is inconsequential. I don't blame them, but I do think there is a solution.

Currently two states engage in splitting their electoral votes--Maine and Nebraska. They each give two electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. And as long as the winner of the popular vote wins at least one district in the state, they give the remaining electoral votes to whichever candidate won in each congressional district. In the 2008 election, Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in history and gave the Electoral College a very rare Democratic vote. In this current election, Maine gave one of its 4 electoral votes to the Republican party. At a glance, this is the most fair system, but would only work for the country as a whole if every state changes simultaneously. If only California changed, for example, they would risk losing too much electoral power that would continue to remain in other large states. However, some who have analyzed this system of proportional voting say it makes it even more likely that the candidate losing the popular vote is elected president anyway.

Another change that must happen for any election to be representative of the people is the political conundrum of gerrymandering, which can be used by politicians to weight their districts unfairly by party, squashing minority groups in their wake and allowing the current power regimes to maintain their holds on the American public. The solution involves drawing district lines at their most compact, the details for which can be found here. It's possible that with gerrymandering abolished, the practice of splitting electoral votes would be more democratic than any proposed solution so far, but I have been unable to find any analysis on the matter.

There are currently many petitions calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, and while these are passionate hopes, I believe they are misguided. There are some undeniable benefits to the Electoral College, but also some huge drawbacks. The answer is unclear, but I hope as we continue to challenge the idea of the Electoral College that the United States will reach a conclusion that better supports each individual American vote.