By Ricardo Lezama 
No president has ever been popularly elected. To any passive observer, there is a need for popularity to win, but they also need to be geographically relevant so that everyone somewhere votes for them. This has led to people in massive states like California and New York technically being underrepresented in political trends at the national level.
BREAKING: A group of Senate Democrats introduce bill to abolish the Electoral College, restoring democracy by allowing the direct election of presidents through popular vote alone.
— Senate Judiciary Committee (@JudiciaryDems) December 16, 2024
Ultimately, Donald Trump’s electoral victory wound up with less of the popular vote than he advertises on social media. Now, more than ever, there is more political strategizing to exploit and favor white racial majorities that were more statically likely to respond well to his racist campaign.
The Electoral College and the Absence of a Direct Popular Vote
The United States Constitution established the Electoral College as the mechanism for electing presidents. Rather than electing a president directly, voters in each state select a slate of electors who then cast votes on behalf of the state. Each state’s electoral votes are determined by its number of congressional representatives: two senators plus its proportional share of representatives in the House. While this system ostensibly balances representation between populous and less populous states, it also creates a situation where winning the presidency is not solely about being the most popular candidate nationwide but about winning the right combination of states.
Because of the Electoral College, candidates must strategically target states where their efforts will yield the greatest returns. Winning over voters in geographically and demographically significant states becomes more critical than simply accruing the most votes overall. This reality explains why presidents often do not reflect a true nationwide consensus: they are elected through geographically strategic victories rather than a uniform expression of the popular will.
Senate Democrats Push to Abolish the Electoral College
In the wake of the 2024 election, frustration with the Electoral College has reached a boiling point among Democrats. On December 16, 2024, three Democratic senators—Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.)—introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the system entirely. The proposal comes after President-elect Trump swept all seven battleground states, delivering a crushing defeat to Vice President Kamala Harris and flipping three Democratic Senate seats in the process.
The senators argue that the Electoral College distorts democracy, disenfranchising millions of Americans by giving disproportionate power to smaller states. Senator Schatz put it plainly: “In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It’s that simple. No one’s vote should count for more based on where they live. The Electoral College is outdated and undemocratic. It’s time to end it.”
This push to eliminate the Electoral College highlights lingering resentment over elections in which the presidency went to a candidate who lost the popular vote—2000 and 2016—both times favoring Republicans. “In 2000, before the general election, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College,” said Senator Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I still believe today that it’s time to retire this 18th-century invention.”
To be sure, the 2024 election results complicate the argument. Trump secured a narrow popular vote victory with 77,300,739 votes to Harris’s 75,014,534. However, many Democrats believe that a direct popular vote system would have given them a stronger chance by encouraging campaigns to prioritize turnout in populous states like California, New York, and Illinois. Under the current system, these states are seen as locked down for Democrats, while Republicans dominate in other high-population states like Florida and Texas.
The Popularity Paradox
While popularity remains crucial for any candidate’s success, it is only part of the equation. To win the presidency, candidates must also demonstrate geographic appeal—the ability to win in key regions that collectively determine the electoral outcome. This dynamic creates what can be called the “popularity paradox”: candidates must be popular enough to win votes nationwide but geographically strategic enough to secure electoral majorities. A candidate with overwhelming national popularity could still lose the presidency if they fail to win the right states. This paradox has played out in modern elections, such as the 2000 and 2016 contests, where candidates who won the national popular vote ultimately lost in the Electoral College.
The 2024 election highlighted this paradox further. President-elect Trump would have still won the presidency under a direct popular vote, having secured 77,300,739 votes compared to Vice President Harris’s 75,014,534. However, many Democrats argue that focusing on running up margins in populous Democratic strongholds could have shifted the political calculus.