How Does the Electoral College Work: Process, History & Public Opinions for 2026

by Imed Bouchrika, PhD

Co-Founder and Chief Data Scientist

Share

By 2025, global electoral participation remains substantial, with billions of voters continuing to take part in national and local elections across dozens of countries. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, voter turnout and electoral engagement remain key indicators of democratic participation worldwide. Among these countries, systems of indirect elections—where representatives formally elect national leaders—are still practiced in nations such as Suriname, Botswana, South Africa, and the United States.

However, the US stands out in one element: its use of a voter-elected Electoral College to pick a president and vice president. This article explains what the US Electoral College is—a process that comes from the first US presidential elections—how does Electoral College work, and public opinion on the system.

How Does the Electoral College Work Table of Contents

1. What is the United States Electoral College?
2. A Brief History of the United States Electoral College
3. Facts and Figures about the Electoral College
4. How does the electoral college work?
5. Criticism and Support of the U.S. Electoral College
6. What do legal and academic experts say about the Electoral College?
7. Public Opinion on the Electoral College
8. How can enhanced civic education improve understanding of the Electoral College?
9. Can the electoral college be reformed?
10. What reform proposals can enhance the Electoral College’s democratic legitimacy?
11. Is the Electoral College prepared for advancements in technology?
12. How does the U.S. Electoral College compare to international electoral systems?
13. How might shifting demographics affect the Electoral College’s effectiveness?
14. What are the long-term implications of retaining the Electoral College?

What is the United States Electoral College?

The United States Electoral College is a body of electors that convenes every four years to formally elect the president and vice president of the United States. The process begins with the popular election held in early November, during which voters select electors pledged to their preferred candidates. Under the United States Constitution, these electors are entrusted with casting the official votes that determine the outcome of the election. To win the presidency, a candidate must secure an absolute majority of at least 270 out of the 538 electoral votes. Contemporary analyses emphasize that this structure remains a defining feature of the U.S. electoral system (National Archives, 2025).

The Electoral College process is mandated by the United States Constitution, with the 12th Amendment establishing the rules that have governed U.S. presidential elections since 1804.

A Brief History of the United States Electoral College

The Electoral College is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, put in place by the nation’s founding fathers. The Electoral College was intended as “a compromise between the election of the president by a vote in Congress and the election of a president by a popular vote of qualified citizens." 

Since 1880, electors for each state have been chosen through a popular election held on Election Day. However, in the original plan for the Electoral College, as it was drafted in the U.S. Constitution, each elector casts two votes for president. The presidential candidate receiving the lower number of votes would then become vice president.

In the first U.S. presidential election, held in 1789, George Washington received the highest number of electoral votes. Getting the second-highest number of electoral votes, John Adams, who then became the country’s first vice president.

The emergence of political parties soon complicated the process. Controversies caused by having the president and vice president from different political properties resulted in the 12th Amendment. Ratified in 1804, it requires electors to cast separate votes for president and vice president (The 12th Amendment, n.d.).

Why the U.S. Electoral College Is in Place

The concept of a college of electors emerged from extensive debates during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 on how to select the nation’s president. Early proposals suggested that Congress would elect the president; however, this approach raised concerns about violating the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. At the same time, delegates rejected direct popular election, fearing that voters might lack sufficient information about candidates from outside their own states. Contemporary historical analyses continue to highlight these concerns as central to the creation of the Electoral College (National Constitution Center, 2025).

Various American founding fathers have expressed what they perceived to be the advantages of the electoral college system. For instance, in one of his essays for The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued that the said election system prevented a party-run legislature. Moreover, he explained that the regular selection of new electors prevented the formation of a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests in their task of choosing the nation’s president (Hamilton, 1788).

Despite significant changes in politics and society over time, the United States Electoral College has retained two of its most fundamental features. First, electoral vote allocations are not strictly proportional to population, as each state’s total is based on its combined representation in the United States Congress—that is, its Senate and House seats. Second, most states continue to apply a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state receives all of its electoral votes, with exceptions such as Maine and Nebraska, where votes are distributed by congressional district. These structural features remain central to the Electoral College system (Congressional Research Service, 2024).

Facts and Figures about the Electoral College

The United States Electoral College has seen various changes since its ratification in the late 1700s. The following facts and figures provide a picture of the current and past Electoral Colleges of the United States.

• California currently has the most electors, with 55 electoral votes.
• The seven least populous states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) have three electors each.
• In the first four election years (1788, 1792, 1796, and 1904), each elector cast two votes for president. The Twelfth Amendment put an end to this practice.
• There have been five U.S. presidential elections where the winner of the electoral vote lost the popular vote: 1824 (John Quincy Adams), 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison), 2000 (George W. Bush), and 2016 (Donald Trump).
• At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Wilson proposed a “three-fifths compromise," where only three-fifths of the actual slave population was counted in a state’s total population (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3). This compromise was repealed in 1868 by the Fourteenth Amendment.
• In 1969, an amendment to abolish the Electoral College was passed in the House of Representatives but was filibustered in the Senate.

How does the electoral college process work?

People from other countries often ask ‘How does the Electoral College work?’ This suffices a relatively lengthy explanation. When Americans cast their votes on Election Day, they actually vote for a slate of electors rather than the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. So, how do electoral votes work? The winning electors of this popular vote will later combine to form the Electoral College. Electors later meet in mid-December—specifically the Monday after the second Wednesday of the month—to cast their electoral individual votes for president and vice president on separate ballots.

Well, then how does the electorial college work in terms of declaring a winner? Though electors are free agents, they typically vote for candidates of the party to whom they have been pledged. In January, following the election year, the US Congress assembles in a joint session to count these electoral votes and declare the winners of the elections.

Apportionment of Electoral Votes

How does the electoral.college work in terms of appointing votes? The number of electors allocated to each state equals the number of the state’s representatives, plus two electors for the state’s senators in the U.S. Congress. (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1) In turn, a state’s number of representatives is based on the state’s population; this is adjusted every 10 years based on results from the United States Census. 

The Electoral College currently consists of 538 electors, based on 435 representatives and 100 senators from the 50 states. According to the 23rd Amendment, Washington, D.C., gets as many electoral votes as it would have if it were a state. However, the District of Columbia cannot get more electors than the least populous state. As such, D.C. was allocated three electors.

Selection of Electors

How does an Electoral College work when selecting electors? In practice, political parties are allowed to select their own slate of prospective electors. As such, political parties and legislative bodies nominate electors in various ways. For instance, in Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina, the selection occurs at party conventions. No matter the selection process, electors are usually strong, loyal, well-known supporters of their respective political parties (How the Electoral College Works Today, n.d.).

While political parties can choose their own electors, the U.S. Constitution has provisions in place for what electors cannot be (Neale, 2017a). Senators, representatives, and persons holding an “Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" cannot serve as electors. This means that any employee of the United States government, whether elected or appointed, cannot be selected for the office of elector.

Despite their critical responsibilities, electors generally receive little recognition, if any (Neale, 2017a). Elector names appear on the ballot in only eight states.

On Election Day, all but two states use the winner-takes-all method of determining which political party appoints all electors for that state (How the Electoral College Works Today, n.d.). Maine and Nebraska do not use this method of allocating electors; instead, these states use the congressional district method. In these states, the winning party of the popular vote in each of the state’s congressional districts can appoint one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote gets the state’s remaining two electors.

Meetings of the Electors

Electors do not actually meet as one body to elect the president and vice president. Instead, the 12th Amendment requires electors to “meet in their respective states." The American founding fathers put this provision in place to prevent intrigue and keep the election safe from manipulation (Neale, 2017a).

How does electoral votes work at this stage? After the national election, the chosen electors in each state meet in their state capitals to cast their electoral votes for president and vice president. Procedures in each state usually vary, but the proceedings unfold in a similar sequence across states. An election certification official opens the meeting by reading the Certificate of Ascertainment, which lists the electors who have been chosen. A president or chairman and a secretary are selected to preside over the meeting and take minutes, respectively.

At the time of balloting, each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a presidential candidate. Appointed tellers count these ballots and announce the results. The same process is used for electing a vice president.

At the end of the meeting, selectors from each state complete Certificates of Vote, which indicate the names of candidates who received an electoral vote for the offices of the president and vice president. The certificates are sent to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, the state’s Secretary of State, and the chief judge of the U.S. district court where the electors met.

Faithless Electors

A faithless elector is an elector who casts a vote, or at least attempts to do so, for a candidate other than their party’s nominee. To date, faithless electors’ actions have never changed the outcome of a presidential election (Faithless Electors, n.d.) Despite this, 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws in place against faithless electors, with penalties varying per state. In Washington, for instance, faithless electors in the 2016 election were fined. In other states, such as Colorado and Minnesota, faithless electors’ votes are voided.

Across 58 national elections in the United States, there have been only 165 faithless electors. Most of these—71 in total—cast different votes due to the death of the candidate they were pledged to support. Notably, in the 2016 presidential election, seven electors voted for candidates to whom they were not pledged. This election marked the first time in over a century that multiple faithless electors, later called the Hamilton Electors, attempted to influence the outcome of the election (Brennan Center for Justice, 2025).

Despite existing state legislation prohibiting faithless electors, constitutional scholars believe that chosen electors are free agents who can vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for the president and vice president (Neale, 2017a).

Declaration of Election Winners

The 12th Amendment requires Congress to assemble in a joint session on January 6th of the year immediately following the elector meetings (U.S. Const. amend. XII). In this joint session, electoral votes are counted and winners of the election are declared. Two tellers are appointed by each house to count the votes, given the nature of how Electoral College works.

Members of Congress can object to the vote count of any state. A state’s Certificate of Vote can be rejected as well if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection.

After all electoral votes are counted, the presiding officer of the joint session declares the final result of the vote and announces the names of candidates elected president and vice president. This formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and the vice-president-elect, who are later sworn into office.

Contingencies for Elections

The Twelfth Amendment also has provisions for cases when no candidate for president receives a majority of the electoral votes. In such events, the House of Representatives goes into session immediately to choose from among the three candidates who received the highest number of electoral votes for president. Each state delegation has a single vote, and delegations from at least two-thirds of all states must be present for voting to commence.

A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes to be declared the president-elect. The House continues balloting until a president is elected.

In situations where no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, the Senate goes into session to choose a vice president. Two-thirds of senators must be present for voting to take place. Senators can choose from all candidates with the highest and second-highest number of electoral votes, with senators each casting one ballot.

Criticism and Support of the U.S. Electoral College

Internet searches like “how does the Electoral College work” reflect widespread public curiosity about the system. Whether the Electoral College remains a suitable method for electing presidents and vice presidents continues to be a matter of ongoing debate, and both proponents and critics of the system have existed since the early years of the republic. In fact, more than 700 proposals to amend or abolish the Electoral College have been introduced in the U.S. Congress over its history, highlighting the long‑standing reform debate. (Efforts to Reform the United States Electoral College, 2025).

The United States Electoral College is often broadly misunderstood by the public, with many Americans unsure of how it operates and why it exists. Public opinion research shows that a majority of U.S. adults have long favored moving toward a direct national popular vote instead of the Electoral College, reflecting skepticism about its fairness and relevance. This lack of trust and ongoing debate has persisted for decades, and criticism of the system continues to be a central part of discussions about presidential elections in the United States.

Criticisms against the Electoral College

Firstly, proponents of reforming the United States Electoral College argue that the system is intrinsically undemocratic because it relies on an indirect election rather than a direct nationwide popular vote, making it seem incompatible with modern democratic values and practices. Critics contend that this indirect design can undermine political equality by allowing a candidate to win the presidency without a plurality of the popular vote.

In fact, there have been five presidential elections in which the Electoral College winner did not receive the most popular votes nationwide—including the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016—which reinforces arguments that the system can diverge from the “will of the people.” Scholars have pointed out that this divergence reveals how the Electoral College “has the potential to undo the people’s will” at multiple points in the election process.

Another major criticism of the United States Electoral College is that it encourages presidential campaigns to focus almost exclusively on a relatively small number of competitive jurisdictions known as “swing states.” Swing states are those in which neither the Democratic nor Republican candidate holds a strong, reliable advantage, making them key targets for campaign attention, visits, and spending.

Research on recent elections shows that presidential candidates disproportionately concentrate their resources in these states, while large portions of the country receive little to no engagement from national campaigns. As a result, many voters outside of competitive states are largely ignored during the election cycle, reinforcing concerns about unequal attention and representation under the Electoral College system. (Pew Research Center, 2024; Swing state (US politics), 2026).

Through the years, more and more people raise the criticism that the Electoral College had long outlived its original objective, that it generates a process of wasted votes, that it operates to modify and/or depress voter turnout, and that it inordinately weighs the votes of smaller States compared to bigger ones.

The excessive focus on swing states also results in voter turnout becoming largely insignificant in non-swing states, since one political party already dominates these so-called “safe states." The Electoral College decreases the advantage of political parties encouraging voters to participate in the elections, except if these votes come from closely fought swing states.

Support of the Electoral College

One of the key arguments in support of the U.S. Electoral College is that it accurately symbolizes the nature of the U.S. as a federal republic. The political structure of the U.S. is built around the idea of a federation that divides power between the federal government and the states. 

Another argument for the Electoral College states that the system allows for the preservation of checks and balances. Through the Electoral College, states are kept in charge of election administration and presidential appointees are prevented from running presidential elections. England further elaborates that the electoral college system has encouraged smarter politicians to build broader nationwide coalitions and break down sectional divides. It also resolves a nation’s most pressing matters, such as automation risks, poverty, and drug abuse among college students, to name a few.

Also, another argument in support of the Electoral College is that the system empowers minority groups to vote. Because of the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, the Electoral College encourages candidates to court minorities and advocacy groups. The voting power of these minority groups would otherwise be decreased because of low voter turnout.

Percentage of Democrats and Republicans in Favor of the Popular Vote

Source: Source: Pew Research Center

Designed by

What do legal and academic experts say about the Electoral College?

Recent scholarly analyses emphasize that the Electoral College raises important questions about democratic legitimacy and federal balance. Legal experts scrutinize constitutional interpretations and propose nuanced reforms that carefully weigh state sovereignty against evolving electoral norms. Academic studies often explore how historical context and modern political dynamics interact, stressing the need for transparent electoral processes. Integrating specialized education—such as offerings found in the easiest master's degree—can enhance research in political systems and encourage data-driven suggestions for incremental reform.

Public Opinion on the Electoral College and Electoral Reforms

Recent polling indicates that a majority of Americans support replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote. According to a 2024–2025 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of U.S. adults would prefer that the presidential election be decided by the person who receives the most votes nationwide, while only about one‑third favor retaining the Electoral College system.

While proposals to amend or abolish the electoral college system haven’t been successful, an agreement on the matter has been reached between a group of US states and the District of Columbia. The result of this agreement is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPCIV), which awards the involved states’ electoral votes to the presidential candidate that wins the overall popular vote nationwide (Agreement among the States, n.d.). This compact would only come into effect if it achieves a majority of the country’s 538 electoral votes.

As of late 2024–early 2025, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been enacted into law by 18 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, collectively controlling 209 electoral votes. The compact is designed to award all participating states’ electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote, but it will not take effect until states representing at least 270 electoral votes have joined. Since the current total falls short of the majority needed to trigger the agreement, the NPVIC still has a way to go before it would be legally operational in presidential elections.

How can enhanced civic education improve understanding of the Electoral College?

Voter comprehension remains a critical factor in evaluating the efficacy of the Electoral College. Inadequate civic education often fuels misconceptions regarding its historical evolution, constitutional basis, and contemporary implications. Strengthening educational initiatives can demystify the electoral process by presenting clear, factual analyses that align with modern democratic practices.

Integrating structured learning modules—ranging from classroom instruction to accessible online courses—can offer citizens a balanced perspective on both the merits and challenges of the system. For example, academic programs such as an accelerated AA degree provide targeted curricula that illuminate the intersection of historical precedent and current electoral dynamics. This approach not only empowers voters to participate more knowledgeably in the political process but also supports ongoing discussions about potential reform.

Can the electoral college be reformed?

The Electoral College has long been a subject of debate. Several reform proposals aim to address concerns over its fairness and representation. Here are some of the most discussed reforms:

• Abolishing the Electoral College: Some advocate for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote. This would ensure every vote is equal and eliminate scenarios where a candidate wins without securing the popular vote.
• Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes: Instead of the winner-takes-all method, a proportional allocation system would distribute electoral votes based on the percentage of votes a candidate receives in a state. This change would better reflect the state's voting sentiment.
• National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC): The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. It only takes effect when enough states join to reach a majority of electoral votes.
• Reforming Faithless Electors: Some proposals ensure electors vote according to their state's popular vote. Reforms may include penalties for faithless electors, ensuring greater consistency and trust in the system.
• Ranked-Choice Voting: Implementing ranked-choice voting could allow voters to rank candidates, ensuring the winner has broad support and potentially reducing the issues with a winner-takes-all system.

What reform proposals can enhance the Electoral College’s democratic legitimacy?

Scholars and policy experts have outlined targeted reforms that address contemporary challenges while upholding federal principles. Proposals emphasize adjusting allocation methods beyond the prevalent winner-take-all system in additional states to better reflect diverse voter preferences, and instituting measures that increase elector accountability and process transparency. Legal frameworks and pilot programs are under review to establish standardized criteria for elector selection and remedial actions for deviations in voting behavior. Concurrently, enhanced civic education initiatives and data-driven analyses—resources often available through institutions like top online schools—can equip future policymakers with the tools needed to evaluate reform impacts with precision. These reform pathways aim to reconcile historical precedents with evolving democratic values without compromising the balance between state authority and national representation.

Is the Electoral College prepared for advancements in technology?

In the digital era, election administration must grapple with cybersecurity risks, data integrity challenges, and transparency demands. Modern technological solutions, from advanced data analytics to secure digital voting protocols, offer opportunities for enhancing the integrity and efficiency of elector selection and vote tabulation. Experts advocate for incorporating these innovations to safeguard critical electoral processes, ensuring that traditional frameworks remain robust in the face of evolving digital threats. Ongoing educational initiatives, such as those found in top online degree programs for seniors, provide avenues for professionals to explore the intersection of historical election methods and modern technological advancements.

How does the U.S. Electoral College compare to international electoral systems?

Research shows that many democracies around the world favor direct popular vote or parliamentary selection rather than an intermediary body for electing their chief executives. In contrast to these systems, the U.S. Electoral College is a unique institution that emphasizes federalism and states’ representation. International case studies reveal that direct elections may yield higher voter responsiveness and altered campaign strategies, while mixed methods often balance regional interests with national mandates. For policymakers and educators aiming to bridge gaps in civic understanding, integrating comparative electoral studies into curricula can be beneficial. Interested readers may also review a list of online trade school programs that include modules on political science and civic engagement.

How might shifting demographics affect the Electoral College’s effectiveness?

Recent population shifts—including urbanization trends, evolving minority group distributions, and migration from traditionally dominant states—have the potential to alter the dynamics of Electoral College outcomes. Changing demographics can influence which states become competitive, challenge the historical weighting of votes, and reshape campaign strategies. As new voting blocs emerge, policymakers and civic leaders are called upon to reexamine the balance between state-based representation and the popular vote. Pursuing targeted studies and even pursuing a degree in 6 months can provide the analytical tools necessary for understanding these complex shifts.

What are the long-term implications of retaining the Electoral College?

The current Electoral College system is likely to continue shaping U.S. political dynamics by reinforcing strategic campaign practices that emphasize swing states and marginalize regions deemed politically safe. This focus may further polarize voter engagement and shift legislative priorities as political parties adjust their resource allocations in response to regional advantages. In addition, ongoing debates about federal balance and state sovereignty may fuel legal and constitutional challenges. These evolving political trends underscore the need for proactive research and policy analysis, similar to how sectors like medical jobs little schooling adapt to changing social landscapes.

Key Insights

• Unique Electoral Process: The U.S. employs a unique system called the Electoral College, where electors chosen by popular vote in each state ultimately elect the president and vice president.
• Historical Compromise: The Electoral College was designed as a compromise between electing the president by Congress and by popular vote to balance the interests of small and large states.
• Electoral Allocation: Each state’s number of electors equals its number of congressional representatives plus two senators, totaling 538 electors. A candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes to win.
• Criticisms: Criticisms of the Electoral College include its perceived undemocratic nature, focus on swing states, and potential to disregard the national popular vote.
• Support: Supporters argue it upholds federalism, balances state and federal interests, encourages coalition-building, and empowers minority voting blocs.
• Public Opinion: There is significant public support for abolishing the Electoral College, with many Americans favoring a direct popular vote system.
• Faithless Electors: While rare, faithless electors—those who do not vote for their pledged candidate—have not historically altered election outcomes.
• National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC): This agreement among some states aims to ensure the president is elected by the national popular vote once enough states join to reach a majority of electoral votes.

References:

1. ABA legal fact check: Can the Electoral College be abolished? (n.d.). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
2. Bomboy, S. (n.d.). 10 fascinating facts about the Electoral College. Constitution Daily.
3. Burnett, K. D. (n.d.). Congressional apportionment. 2010 Census Briefs.
4. Cervas, J.R., & Grofman, B. (n.d.). Are presidential inversions Inevitable? Comparing eight counterfactual rules for electing the U.S. President. Social Science Quarterly, 100 (4), 1322-1342.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12634
5. Choosing a president: How the Electoral College works. (n.d.). Prologue Magazine, 44 (3). NationalArchives
6. Daniller, A. (n.d.). A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote. FactTank. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
7. Duquette, C.M., Mixon, F.G., & Cebula, R.J. (n.d.). Swing states, the winner-take-all Electoral College, and fiscal federalism. Atlantic Economic Journal, 45, 4557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-016-9526-2
8. Edwards, G. (n.d.). The Electoral College and political equality. In Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America (pp. 31-54). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. JSTOR
9. Electoral College history. (n.d.). Washington, DC: National Archives.
10. England, T. (n.d.). PRO: Current system keeps states in charge of our elections. In Debating the Electoral College. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. NCSL
11. Penrose, D. (n.d.). Faithless electors. FairVote.
12. Guelzo, A. (n.d.). In defense of the Electoral College. National Affairs, 44 (Summer). AEI
13. Haddad, M., Chughtai, A., & Robinson, K. (n.d.). How the world votes: 2019. Al Jazeera.
14. Hamilton, A. (n.d.). The federalist papers: No. 68. Avalon Project.
15. How the Electoral College works today. (n.d.). FairVote.
16. Kimberling, W. C. (n.d.). The Electoral College. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. Google Books
17. Klein, C. (n.d.). 8 things you may not know about the Electoral College. History.com.
18. Kuroda, T. (n.d.). The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic, 17871804. Greenwood. p. 168. Google Books
19. Neale, T. H. (n.d.). The Electoral College: How it works in contemporary presidential elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
20. Neale, T. H. (n.d.). Electoral college reform: Contemporary issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
21. Nivola, P. S. (n.d.). Thinking about political polarization. Brookings Policy Brief Series.
22. O’Donnell, L. (n.d.). Meet the ‘Hamilton electors’ campaigning for an Electoral College revolt. The Atlantic.
23. The 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (n.d.). Philadelphia, PA: National Constitution Center.
24. Saad, L. (n.d.). Americans call for term limits, end to Electoral College. Gallup.
25. Sabato, L., Kondik, K., & Skelley, G. (n.d.). The Electoral College: The only thing that matters. Sabato’s Crystal Ball.
26. Savage, D. G. (n.d.). For the fourth time in American history, the president-elect lost the popular vote. Credit the electoral college. Los Angeles Times.
27. Tollar, E.T., & Kimball, S.H. (n.d.). A more perfect Electoral College: Challenging winner-takes-all provisions under the Twelfth Amendment. Legislation & Policy Brief , 9 (1), 4-36. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/lpb/vol9/iss1/3/
28. Vanden Heuvel, K. (n.d.). It’s time to end the Electoral College. The Nation.
29. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2025). Voter turnout database. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
30. National Archives. (2025). Electoral College. National Archives.
31. Congressional Research Service. (2024). The Electoral College: An overview and analysis of reform proposals. Congressional Research Service.
32. Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College. (2025). Wikipedia.
33. Kiley, J. (2024, September 25). Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College. Pew Research Center.
34. Electoral College | Pros, Cons, Debate, History, Controversy. (n.d.). Britannica.
35. List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. (2026). Wikipedia.
36. Electoral College History. (2024). National Archives. Electoral College History.
37. Pew Research Center. (2024, August 28). Presidential campaign focus remains concentrated on a small set of battleground states. Pew Research Center.
38. Swing state (US politics). (2026). Wikipedia.
39. Kiley, J. (2024, September 25). Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College. Pew Research Center.
40. National Popular Vote. (2024). Status of National Popular Vote bill in each state. National Popular Vote.