In 2016, over a hundred students gathered to watch the election in Carter Lobby. With the couches pulled into a semicircle, there was red and blue kool-aid offered as well as candies and informal political debate. As the night rounded out, it looked like Clinton would win the race. She had more popular votes, but as we all know, Trump won the electoral college. For many students, the question of what the electoral college is still rattles around in their brains. The Virginia House of Delegates answers: the electoral college is unnecessary.
The Virginia House of Delegates, in an act of protest, has passed House Bill 177 in a 51-46 vote, which will award the state’s electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in any presidential election.
“This idea that some American citizens should have more power to choose the president of the United States, I, frankly, find profoundly offensive,” says Delegate Mark Levine in an interview with CNN.
This bill would also be incorporated into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if signed into law. While the Senate decision to pass the bill remains relatively unknown, it is highly likely it will not face too much opposition since Virginia Democrats control both the Senate and the Governor’s office. If signed into law, Virginia would join the fifteen other states who have adopted the pact.
“Under the compact, Virginia agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” states the bill summary. The summary also states that “the compact goes into effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have joined the compact,” according to The Hill.
This is not the first time states have protested the electoral college. Last year, Colorado also joined the pact, alongside Hawaii, Maryland, and New Jersey. The role of the electoral college has become a key issue in the 2020 campaign, with Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, among others, calling for the abolition of the 233-year-old institution.
In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court intervened on the issue of which candidate received Florida’s electoral votes, with George W. Bush proclaimed the recipient, topping him at 271 to 266 against Democratic candidate and former Vice President Al Gore. Many Democratic candidates, including Sanders, have cited the problems with a president who was put over the 270 mark, but lost the popular vote by 3 million to Hillary Clinton, according to The Hill.
While many candidates are vowing to abolish the electoral college, the change to do so is an uphill battle, with the most daunting obstacle being the Constitution. An amendment would need to be put into place, which would require two-thirds of the House and Senate, and about three-fourths of the states to support such an amendment. Advocates on the left and the right have cited the pros and cons on the end of the electoral college. Advocates for the abolition have cited the disproportionate representation some smaller states have over more populated ones, while those against abolition cite similar disproportions.
According to political scientist Gary Gregg, a major systematic overhaul might place smaller states at a significant disadvantage. “Precisely what it does is proportionally advantages where people are, and places where there are more people become more important when you’re counting votes,” he said.
According to Senior Class President Ian Banks, the campus leans more apolitical than most big-name universities. “Most of our professors do not take explicit stances on platform issues, let alone students candidates, and the student body as a whole is not very politically involved,” he said. Banks had tables set up in Carter Lobby to encourage students to register to vote. Don’t forget your out of state ballots, kids!