Tim Walz Wants to Abolish the Electoral College and Just Go With the Popular Vote

Source: YouTube

Tim Walz, Democratic VP candidate and Minnesota Governor, has reignited the debate on whether the US should abolish the electoral college or not. During recent campaign events, Walz called for a shift to a national popular vote system, which he argues better reflects voter preferences. Walz’s statements echo the frustrations within his party, especially after the 2016 election, where the popular vote winner did not win the presidency. Many Democrats, including Walz, believe that it’s time for each vote to carry equal weight across the country.

The Electoral College was established in 1787 as part of a compromise to balance power between more populated and less populated states. Each state’s electoral votes reflect its congressional representation, with 538 total votes at stake. A candidate must reach 270 votes to win, regardless of the popular vote. This winner-take-all system, in place in most states, has led to outcomes where the candidate with the majority of the national vote fails to secure the presidency—a reality that has frustrated voters across the political spectrum.

The National Popular Vote Compact Also Wants to Abolish the Electoral College 

Walz is not alone in his desire for electoral reform. He has championed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among states that pledges their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, once enough states join to meet the 270-vote threshold. This Compact offers a potential path forward without needing a full constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Currently, states representing 196 electoral votes have signed on, and advocates are hopeful that more will join.

Yet, constitutional amendments are notoriously difficult to pass, especially in today’s polarized political climate. The Compact reflects the effort to move toward a popular vote system incrementally, but reaching the 270 electoral vote threshold remains a challenge. Walz and others view this Compact as an important step toward a more representative electoral process that can adapt to modern voting patterns and better reflect the nation’s demographic diversity.

Partisan Perspectives: A Deepening Divide

The call to abolish the Electoral College has drawn familiar partisan lines. Many Democrats, who feel that the system distorts democratic principles, see a national popular vote as a step toward fairer representation. They argue that the Electoral College prioritizes a few key swing states, minimizing voter influence in non-battleground regions. The 2016 election, where Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but lost due to the Electoral College, is a primary example of this system’s flaws.

Conversely, Republicans argue that the Electoral College is crucial for balancing power across states, ensuring that smaller, less populated states have a voice. They warn that without it, campaign focus would shift to larger urban areas, leaving rural regions unheard. Some believe that the system encourages presidential candidates to build broad coalitions that appeal to diverse regions, preventing a concentration of power in highly populated urban centers.

Challenges Ahead for Electoral Reform

To abolish the Electoral College, lawmakers will need to pass a constitutional amendment or have enough states joining the National Popular Vote Compact. Given the difficulty of amending the Constitution, the Compact has gained traction as an alternative means of shifting the balance toward a national popular vote. However, reaching the required 270 electoral votes remains a significant challenge. The divide between supporters and opponents of the Electoral College reflects the larger tension in American politics over state versus federal power, which has persisted since the country’s founding.

The debate over whether to abolish the Electoral College highlights the complexity of modern American democracy. Supporters of a national popular vote argue that it would make every citizen’s vote equally important, while opponents fear that it would lead to a concentration of power in large, populous regions. Walz’s push to abolish the Electoral College may reignite calls for reform, but achieving such change will require both time and widespread support across the political spectrum.

Do you think it's time to abolish the Electoral College and embrace a national popular vote? Tell us what you think?