Hillary Clinton has reignited her long-standing criticism of the Electoral College, describing it as an anachronism rooted in the era of slave-owning states. The former secretary of state and presidential candidate voiced her argument on a podcast, reiterating her long-held belief that the system should be abolished.
Clinton asserted that the modern Republican Party struggles to win elections legitimately, resorting instead to tactics such as restricting voter access and altering electoral rules. She pointed to practices like redistricting, legal challenges over voter data, and claims of noncitizen voting as strategies designed to limit participation.
"We shouldn't be hanging on to an anachronism that was designed for slave-owning states," Clinton stated on the voting rights media platform Democracy Docket. She noted that she has been advocating for reform since at least 2000, following the election where then-Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush through the Electoral College.
"This needs to go because it's not reflective of one person, one vote," she added. The Electoral College result in the 2016 presidential election saw Donald Trump secure 304 electoral votes to Clinton's 227, ultimately handing him the presidency despite Clinton winning the national popular vote by approximately 2.87 million ballots. This outcome has since fueled ongoing calls for electoral reform among Democrats.
The Electoral College, established in the late 18th century, has frequently been a point of contention in American politics, particularly in elections where the popular vote winner does not secure the presidency. This phenomenon has occurred several times in modern American history, including the 2000 election when George W. Bush won the presidency over Al Gore, who had a narrower popular vote lead than Clinton had in 2016. Earlier instances include the 1888 election where Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland, and highly disputed elections in 1876 and 1824.
Supporters of the Electoral College contend that it safeguards smaller states from being overshadowed by densely populated urban centers, thereby preserving the nation's federal structure and regional power balance. Conversely, critics argue that the system undermines democratic fairness by enabling a candidate to win the presidency without garnering the most votes nationwide.
Academic research and election modeling suggest that a national popular vote system could have altered the outcomes of recent elections. Studies indicate that in both 2000 and 2016, the candidate who won the most popular votes would have also won the presidency. Furthermore, research suggests that campaign strategies would likely shift significantly, with candidates potentially focusing more on increasing turnout in major population centers rather than concentrating on a few swing states.