~ By Connor McWard, Sophie Mullaney, Isaac Oronsky, Ian Proctor<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2016, Hillary Clinton won more votes, but Donald Trump won the presidency. This outcome, where the president won the people\u2019s vote but lost the election, has happened four other times in U.S. history. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most Americans disagree with the current system. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center <\/a>study, 63% prefer that the popular vote to decide the next U.S. president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some argue for abolishing the Electoral College because the system gives unequal representation to individuals in different states. This runs contrary to the United States\u2019 \u201cone person, one vote\u201d promise. Because of how electors are apportioned, a person\u2019s vote in Wyoming, the least populous state, was worth 3.5 times as much as a vote in California, the most populous state, according to Oliver Ernst, writing in a 2020 article on Medium<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another criticism is that a select number of \u201cswing\u201d states play a key role in deciding the outcome of an election. In 2020, almost three-quarters of all campaign events were held in just six swing states, according to Benjamin Oestericher in Fairvote.org<\/a>. This year, most election professionals<\/a> predict that seven states, Pennsylvania \u2013 Georgia \u2013 Michigan \u2013 Wisconsin \u2013 Nevada \u2013 Arizona \u2013 and North Carolina, with a total of 93 Electoral College votes, will be the deciding factors.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jonathan Hanania, a student at the University of Oregon, believes the Electoral College system doesn\u2019t include the needs of the rest of the country. He thinks that using the popular vote to determine elections is a better alternative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWith the popular vote, [candidates] would be playing to the needs and desires of every voter \u2014 not just voters in specific locations,\u201d Hanania said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Michael W. McConnell, a law professor, said in a Stanford Magazine article<\/a> that if the United States were to use a popular vote but a candidate doesn\u2019t win by a clear majority, then we should \u201cimagine a Florida-style recount in every precinct in America.\u201d The article, written before the 2016 election, argues that the Electoral College reduces the cost and confusion of elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Views on the issue are partisan. According to the Pew survey<\/a>, 80% of U.S. Democrats support a constitutional amendment to reform or abolish the Electoral College, while only 46% of Republicans feel the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Abolishing the Electoral College system would necessitate the passing of a Constitutional amendment, requiring two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve the change, as well as ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures. In the 1950s, an amendment <\/a>to abolish it passed the Senate but narrowly failed in the House. More recent efforts have also failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Common Cause, a nonprofit based in Washington D.C., is working on another method of reform to the Electoral College that wouldn\u2019t require a constitutional amendment. The National Popular Vote Compact would implement a popular vote system if \u201cstates with 270 electors \u2014 a majority \u2014 joined in,\u201d according to their website<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n