Why do we have the Electoral College? CNN’s John King Explains (Exclusive)

Five hundred and thirty-eight Electoral College votes will soon be split between this year’s presidential candidates and CNN’s. Jan Koningthe countdown has begun.

The network’s chief national correspondent, 61, operates CNN’s groundbreaking “Magic Wall” touchscreen, which allows viewers to visualize polling data as results come in. He has been through ten presidential elections in his career, learning the ins and outs of the country’s unique electoral process.

In the United States, the presidential candidate with the most votes does not necessarily win the election. To secure a victory, a candidate must earn more than half of the Electoral College’s support, which requires 270 electoral votes. Each state is allocated a certain number of votes in the Electoral College, based on its population, and whoever wins the state’s popular vote wins its electoral votes.

The Electoral College system is controversial and gives some battleground states disproportionate power in determining the next president. This year, Kamala Harris And Donald Trump have spent most of their time in the seven swing states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – where they have worked hard to gain their support.

As the election came to a close, PEOPLE reached out to King — who is currently an expert on electoral maps — to discuss the history of the Electoral College, how it affects political campaigns and whether it could ever be abolished . Read on for our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity.

Why does the Electoral College exist? What was the reason we got into it in the first place?

The Electoral College was created because the founders – the guys in wigs – couldn’t agree on how to choose a president. And because we came from King George and the monarchy and the oppressive British rule and the authoritarian king, they were afraid to let the people decide the elections because they thought there would be an angry populist who would destroy the masses and the people. to influence. would make a mistake. And so they abandoned a monarchy, but they did not fully trust democracy. And so we got the Electoral College, a long time ago.

What are the arguments for retaining the Electoral College in these modern times?

The argument for keeping it is that if the nation switched to a pure, popular vote, a candidate would simply go to California, New York, Texas, and Illinois and stack the fifty states by population. In the past, you actually had to do math during the campaign. Now you would enter it into a computer and ask your AI engine, “How do I get into the popular vote at 50-plus-one?” Where are they?’

So the argument against abolishing the Electoral College is that people would only campaign in the major population centers, and rural America or small towns – even within a large state – the small towns might be ignored. Or think of a place like Texas: as a presidential candidate they only went to Dallas and Houston. I understand that.

There is a very legitimate point in the question: “Would parts of the country be left out of the conversation and ignored by the candidates?” Because if you just look at a map and study the geography, we have giant population centers, and then we have medium-sized population centers, which tend to be close to the giant population centers. The cities and suburbs would control America and the rural areas, the less populated areas, would have less influence than they do today.

And what is the argument for abandoning the Electoral College?

The argument for the other side, to eliminate the Electoral College, is the search for democracy in its purest form. But there is actually no such thing as a democracy in its purest form, in terms of large countries. The Electoral College was a compromise, and the way we choose a president will probably always have to be a compromise.

What fascinates me is that our politics is so polarized and dysfunctional now that we can’t even have this conversation anymore. Of course, about the things that are still in the books that were put there by the founding fathers, it seems a little silly to me that we can’t go into one room and have conversations about it, that we can’t go into another to go. deepening Congress and debating it.

The Electoral College is like gun control. It’s a bit like the Second Amendment. “Well, someone wrote that down in 1780, how dare you change that in 2024?” It seems a bit ridiculous. It’s not my job to say what the outcome should be, but I do think it’s a little ridiculous that we can’t have conversations about these things and bring people to the table. If you think it’s wrong, show me the way. And if you don’t like the votes, are you willing to talk about what… could there be a hybrid?

Both sides have good arguments, but trying to see if there is a way to compromise is simply impossible right now because of the polarization.

You’ve spoken to many undecided voters across the country this year. Does this topic ever come up with them? Is the electoral system something that’s been mentioned, in terms of whether it affects the likelihood of them getting out and voting?

Not whether they will vote or not. You sometimes hear from hardcore Democrats, people who are very committed Democrats, “Why are we still doing it this way?” And you can understand that, because a few times in recent history, the person who won the popular vote didn’t win the presidency.

In our more recent history that would be the case Al Gore And Hillary Clintonand they were quite controversial. Not only did they lose the election and win the popular vote, but they were both really controversial elections. Right? In 2000 the hangings were at the Supreme Court and in 2016 they were Trump. And so Democrats are more passionate about this right now because of their recent memories.

I don’t recall ever meeting a voter who says, “The Electoral College is my most important issue,” or “I’m not going to vote.” I’ve never heard of people being so concerned about it. But passionate, committed Democrats sometimes bring it up.

What would it take to abolish the Electoral College?

Well, I mean, I think it’s pretty clear to us. If Kamala Harris wins the popular vote by – Biden won by, what, 7 million votes? – if Vice President Harris wins the popular vote, anywhere Joe Biden did in 2020 and lose the election, you can be sure: I say this water is bubbling, but sometimes it boils. It will boil over and Democrats will demand political reform. And that is a guarantee.

If Harris wins the popular vote and Trump wins the presidency, will that be three times in 24 years? Three times in 24 years a Democrat has won the popular vote but lost the election. That will, I think, put something that is an interesting conversation into a very controversial front-and-center issue.

And you see with the national popular vote movement that there are people in the United States who are trying to do this. And none of them have reached the tipping point yet. But whether it’s ranked choice voting, whether it’s nonpartisan primaries, there’s a basketful of political reform ideas bubbling up in various places around the country, born out of a common dissatisfaction or dismay at the way things are or aren’t working now — and the Electoral College is one of those conversations.

What does it take to turn that from a conversation into actual action? I don’t really know that part. I haven’t had enough time to think about it and study it, but I do think you’re seeing a lot of these reforms. One man’s reform is another man’s poison, I think. And so part of the question is, what will it take to get them to a tipping point?