As a swing state, Pennsylvania was the center of attention in the 2024 presidential election. With 19 Electoral College votes, many political analysts believed whichever candidate won Pennsylvania would win the election. And they were right.
Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris visited the Lehigh Valley on the campaign trail and collectively spent half a billion dollars on advertising in Pennsylvania alone. Candidates rallied in Allentown, only 15 minutes from Southern Lehigh High School. Because of the Electoral College system, targeting Pennsylvania was a strategic tactic for presidential candidates. It is considered more accessible for political parties to win over a few voters in these swing states than to spend time and effort campaigning in areas where the other party has a stronger foothold.
The Electoral College is deeply harmful to our country’s political climate, as whole states can be virtually ignored by a presidential candidate’s campaign, promoting a sense that the federal government is not properly representing or interacting with those constituents. Several members of the Spotlight editorial staff voted for the very first time this past November and could feel the pressure their vote carried.
But, what really is the Electoral College process? The Electoral College is unique among democratic voting practices. Many countries, like Canada, use a popular vote, relying on a simple majority to select leaders. In recent years, the Electoral College has come under fire for improperly representing constituents and allowing certain voters more impact.
The Electoral College comprises 538 districts where voters cast their ballots. Then, in every state but Maine and Nebraska, the party that wins a majority of districts wins every electoral vote in that state; for example, in Pennsylvania, all 19 electoral votes would go to party X if they swept ten districts, even if party Y won in the other nine. Thus, it only takes a few districts to choose one party over the other to win the entire state’s Electoral College votes.

According to the Pew Research Center, 63% of Americans would prefer to see the president-elect be the person who wins the most votes nationally, the popular vote. In both the 2000 and 2016 elections, Al Gore and Hilary Clinton, respectively, lost these elections even though they won the popular vote. Additionally, the Electoral College system discourages minority voters in strong Democratic or Republican states from voting in the presidential election as they feel their votes will not change the outcome of their state.
But the popular vote system may be a step too far in the other direction, as it would not protect minority rights if one majority opinion were to sweep through the country. Not to mention, a popular vote system would not protect against dangerous parties seizing power, as the electors would no longer act as a fail-safe.
Instead, we propose a simple adjustment to the current Electoral College system, one that Maine and Nebraska have already made. Electoral votes should be decided by the majority result in each district individually, not given as a whole to the prevailing winner of the state. Instead of a candidate winning all the electoral votes by winning the majority in the state, electors from each district will vote the same way as the popular vote in each district.
This system would solve the issue of swing states, as the votes from historically-contested states would simply be split fifty-fifty between the candidates. This would better represent the desires of voters within those states; their ballots would count rather than be ignored simply because the opposing party won by a small majority. This system would also encourage candidates to better distribute their attention throughout all states, because there would be no need to win over swing states in particular. As such, they will be forced to campaign to every constituent.
This proposal would ensure that all voters feel as though they have an equal say in presidential elections, encouraging more voter turnout. This process would also better uphold the 1964 Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. Sims, outlining the principle of “one person, one vote.” Though a small change, it would go a long way into protecting the democratic ideals of America.