Elections have consequences and unambiguously impact of the lives of every American, including those of young adults.Former U.S. President Ronald Regan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Regardless of our political ideology, we can all agree that rendering a basic understanding of the electoral process is essential for those who are coming of age, and participation in this process is paramount. However, data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that while individuals from 18 to 24 are accountable for approximately 31 percent of the overall electorate, members of this demographic have been less likely to vote than any other age group since 1962. This raises a bold question: why aren’t voters within this demographic participating in the electoral process? While there are many factors that contribute to the insufficient number of young adults voting, the recent Presidential election exhibited that young voters felt as though their votes “did not count.” On election night, New York Businessman, Donald Trump became the President-Elect despite receiving almost three million less votes than his opponent, former U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. According to PBS’ “News Hour,” Secretary Clinton’s current lead over President-Elect Trump is expected to double as the final ballots are counted.Trump’s victory marks the fifth time in American history where a president has lost the popular vote (total number of overall votes) but managed to win the Electoral College, a system mandated by the Constitution where states are given a selected number of votes. History has shown the Electoral College can often allow individuals who receive fewer votes to still win the election. That is why we must move to eliminate the Electoral College.

The Electoral College system disproportionately distributes the total number of votes, and this can disenfranchise voters who hold opposing political views than the majority of individuals in their respected state. According to the National Archives Records and Administration, all but two states (Nebraska and Main) follow the traditional “winner-takes-all” rule where the entirety of the state’s Electoral votes are awarded to the candidate with the most votes, even in the instance of achieving a narrow victory. The practice of “winner-take-all” in a sense makes the ballots of the opposing party worthless – because they are not factored into the national vote. If, however, we followed a proportionate vote distribution system, the Electoral votes would be awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote. For example: in 2012 nearly five million people voted for Republican Mitt Romney over Democratic President, Barack Obama in the state of California. Under the “winner-take-all” system, President Obama received the entirety of the state’s 55 Electoral votes. Under a proportionate system, Romney would have received 22 out of 55 Electoral votes.The same is true regarding the most recent Presidential race. According to NBC News, Secretary Clinton received nearly six million votes in California, but she won the entirely of the state’s Electoral votes. On the contrary, Mr. Trump received over three million votes.In a world where Electoral votes were distributed based on the overall percentage of votes, Mr. Trump would have received 18 Electoral votes.

Our current electoral process also disenfranchises those who hail from states with larger populations and favors those who hail from states with smaller populations, like West Virginia. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, West Virginia has a population of roughly 1.8 million people and is awarded five Electoral votes. This means that West Virginia is awarded one vote for every 360,000 people. Whereas, a state like New York with a population of approximately 19.75 million people is awarded 29 Electoral votes - about one for every 681,034 people.According to this data, a single ballot cast in West Virginia has nearly the same impact as two ballots cast in New York.The notion that a vote being cast in one state yields a higher value than someone in another state is unconscionable and violates the fundamental principles of a democracy.

Although a particular candidate may win a state, there is no guarantee that they will receive the Electoral votes. When voters enter the voting booth, they are merely voting for an individual to later cast a ballot on their behalf, these individuals are referred to as Electors.While it may seem apparent that these Electors must vote for whichever candidate won their respected state, according to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, there is no law preventing Electors from voting for whoever they choose in 24 states. Meaning, an Elector can defy the results of the election, and vote for any individual who meets the Constitutional requirements of being president. Although there is a serve temptation to classify this loophole as one that is rarely exercised, the National Archives and Records Administration states that this loophole has to be utilized by Electors over 80 times in American history.

Proponents for the Electoral College argue that it “contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president.” While we can all agree that an individual should receive popular support before being elected president, the current process has exhibited that the arguably least popular candidate (the candidate who received the least amount of votes) can still retain a victory, and claim the White House. If we were to truly implement a system that required a distribution of popular support, that would be one in which all votes are taken into account, and the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote is declared the winner.

There is no doubt that the issue of whether or not to abolish the Electoral College is a conscious topic. Since the Electoral College is mandated under the United States Constitution, moving towards a popular vote system would require a Constitutional Convention. This is certainly a long, difficult process considering that it would not only take action from two-thirds of states but a two-thirds vote in both Congress and the U.S. Senate.However, the idea of ensuring that every vote matters should not be a lofty goal – it should an expectation. Ensuring that a voter in New York is as fairly represented as a voter in North Dakota or West Virginia begins with individuals from both political parties writing letters to their state representative demanding that we abolish the Electoral College, and move towards an electoral system that ensures the voice of every voter is heard.