If you could Change One Thing about the Constitution, what would it be

Introduction

The United States Constitution is widely regarded as a foundational document in democratic governance. Written in 1787 and ratified in 1788, it has provided a blueprint for limited government, individual rights, and the rule of law. While it has stood the test of time, the Constitution is not without flaws or areas that could benefit from revision. If I could change one thing about the Constitution, it would be to eliminate or reform the Electoral College system used to elect the President of the United States.

This aspect of the Constitution, though originally designed with specific intentions, no longer serves the needs of a modern, diverse democracy and has led to repeated distortions of the popular will.

Understanding the Electoral College

The Electoral College is an indirect method of electing the President. Each state receives a number of electoral votes equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. There are 538 total votes, and a candidate must secure at least 270 to win. This system means that the votes of individuals in less populous states carry disproportionately more weight than those in more populous states.

The original intent of the system was to balance the influence of smaller and larger states and prevent direct mob rule. However, over time, the system has revealed significant shortcomings, especially in terms of democratic representation and fairness.

Disproportionate Representation

One of the major criticisms of the Electoral College is the imbalance it creates in voter influence. For example, a vote in Wyoming carries far more weight than a vote in California simply due to population differences and the fixed allocation of two Senate-based electoral votes to every state regardless of size. This violates the principle of "one person, one vote" and diminishes the democratic ideal that each citizen’s vote should count equally.

This distortion undermines the legitimacy of presidential elections and leaves millions of voters feeling disenfranchised. In an age where voting rights are hotly contested and voter participation is crucial, such systemic imbalance sends the wrong message about political equality.

Presidents Elected Without the Popular Vote

Another major flaw of the Electoral College is its ability to award the presidency to a candidate who does not win the popular vote. This has happened five times in U.S. history, most recently in the elections of 2000 and 2016. In both cases, the winning candidate lost the nationwide popular vote but secured enough electoral votes through narrow victories in key swing states.

Such outcomes undermine the legitimacy of the elected president and can lead to political polarization and public distrust. A system that allows for the popular will to be ignored in the most powerful political office in the country is incompatible with modern democratic expectations.

The Swing State Problem

Because of the winner-takes-all method used in most states, presidential campaigns focus disproportionately on a handful of battleground or “swing” states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. States that are reliably red or blue are often ignored, leading to unequal attention, funding, and voter engagement across the country.

Voters in solidly partisan states feel neglected, as their preferences are unlikely to affect the outcome. This further distorts representation and creates a divided political landscape where certain states hold outsized influence over national elections. Eliminating the Electoral College would incentivize candidates to campaign nationwide and address issues affecting a broader segment of the population.

Barriers to Changing the Constitution

Despite widespread criticism of the Electoral College, amending the Constitution is an extremely difficult process. Article V requires either two-thirds of both the House and Senate to propose an amendment, or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states. In either case, three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment. This high threshold has prevented many proposed reforms, including those aimed at abolishing the Electoral College.

Nevertheless, public opinion has increasingly shifted in favor of reform. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support moving to a direct popular vote system. In recent years, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has emerged as a workaround, in which states agree to allocate their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner once enough states join the compact. Though not a constitutional amendment, this compact reflects growing frustration with the current system.

Benefits of a Popular Vote System

Replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote would make every vote count equally, regardless of where it is cast. It would eliminate the disproportionate influence of small states and the battleground state phenomenon, restoring confidence in the democratic process. A direct election system would also likely increase voter turnout, as citizens would feel more empowered knowing their vote matters.

Moreover, it would encourage candidates to address the concerns of all Americans rather than tailoring their platforms to a few swing states. Campaign strategies would evolve to include national outreach, enhancing civic engagement across diverse regions and communities.

Addressing Common Concerns

Opponents of eliminating the Electoral College often argue that it protects the interests of smaller states and maintains a balance of power. While these concerns are valid, the current system does so at the cost of democratic equality. In a truly democratic society, all votes should carry the same weight, and representation should reflect population proportionally.

Others worry about potential chaos in close elections under a popular vote system. However, technological advancements and national vote counting systems can help manage such situations. Close elections already occur under the Electoral College, and recounts are more complicated when votes hinge on a few disputed states. A nationwide recount, while challenging, is not insurmountable and could actually be more transparent and just.

Conclusion

While the U.S. Constitution has endured for over two centuries, it is not immune to necessary revision. The Electoral College, once a practical compromise, now serves as a barrier to democratic representation and fairness. If I could change one thing about the Constitution, it would be to replace the Electoral College with a system of direct popular election for the presidency. This change would enhance the legitimacy of presidential elections, ensure equal weight for every vote, and better align with modern democratic principles. Reforming the Constitution is not easy, but for the sake of a more equitable and responsive democracy, it is a goal worth pursuing.

Did you like this example?

233

10