The Electoral College: Factionalism’s Best Friend

Factionalism is defined as the condition in which a group is split into two or more smaller groups due to opposing interests or values. [1] Recognizing that factionalism is an inevitable aspect of human nature, James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that a new American Democracy risked falling to either of its extremes: the “tyranny of a majority” [2] or the “tyranny of a minority.” [3] A government of the first would suppress differences altogether, while one of the second would be unrepresentative of most American voters. [4] Thus, Madison saw that a representative government should structurally mitigate the potential for these outcomes, and his concerns had a profound effect on the structure of the United States government. [5] This article will focus on the Electoral College and its legal legitimacy as a mitigating agent to factionalism.

Codified by Article II of the United States Constitution, the Electoral College refers to the selection and dispersion of electors formally cast votes in the presidential election, with the number of electors in a given state being proportional to its total population. [6] In a young America, this system reflected the will of eligible voters while preventing the electoral dominance of large cities over small towns as present in a small, populous system. [7] However, the American electorate has evolved alongside the country; the expansion of voting rights to all citizens, coupled with sizable acquisitions of rural North American land, has transformed the nature of democratic participation.

Despite both electorate and land growth, the Electoral College has not been changed since its establishment in Article II. [8] The United States government hinges on fair representation, and this failure to adapt executive appointment to modern democratic principles creates the potential for serious threats to the future of American democracy. This paper argues that the intent of the Electoral College to ensure fair representation in the face of factionism does not stand in modern America. Instead, it has become legally indefensible as an agent against factionalism due to its disproportionate weight on battleground states, negative effect on voter turnout, and contradiction of legal precedent that treats the democratic process as an evolving entity.

In concentrating political influence in a select group of battleground states, the Electoral College fuels factionalism in modern America by incentivizing presidential candidates to cater campaigns to specific states instead of the needs of the “United States” they are trying to represent. Battleground states are a small group of states with moderate to large amounts of electoral votes that see defining ideological shifts between election cycles. [9] These states hold a disproportionate amount of power in presidential elections due to the Electoral College; because most states are politically predictable, elections are determined by these competitive states in which the candidate who wins the popular vote obtains all of that state’s electoral votes. [10] This means that even a narrow battleground victory yields a significant electoral advantage. [11] This modern phenomenon directly reflects both factionalist extremes that Madison warns his countrymen about in Federalist No. 10; the battleground states function as a tyrannical minority over other states, [12] and granting full electoral power to a candidate after such narrow victories allows the majority to silence a significant portion of a battleground electorate. [13]

Furthermore, Presidential campaigns are centered around the needs of constituents in this minority due to their increased weight under the Electoral College, while reliably red or blue states are seldom a stop on campaign trails. [14] This is detrimental to voter efficacy in non-battleground states. In 2024, Ballotpedia reported that “safe states” like New York and New Jersey saw 5% drops in overall voter turnout in the presidential election after being called years before the election took place. [15] This data proves that voters living in states with a predictable electoral outcome are less likely to vote. This is contrary to Madison’s intent of national election; the people are meant to elect a nationally representative leader, [16] but portions of the population are currently indifferent to voting due to the electoral system. This indicates that the idea of a nationally appointed executive is obsolete under the Electoral College; the will of the people is pinned to strategic calculation campaigns tailored to select states. This amplifies the factions of battleground and safe states while creating fifty factions out of the states as voting blocks, further subverting the anti-factionalist ideals the Electoral College is meant to uphold.

The effects of the Electoral College’s modern failure to prevent factionalism are not limited to states and voter turnout — they extend to every individual in the American population. The Electoral College contradicts the American treatment of democracy as a growing mechanism, ignoring precedents set by the Supreme Court. [17] When the Supreme Court heard Wesberry vs. Sanders in 1964, [18] it held that Congressional districts must have roughly equal populations on a state-by-state basis. [19] This ruling established the American ideal of “one person, one vote” in a judicial setting, stating that individual votes in a given state must have the same impact on an election. [20] The legal basis of “one person, one vote” was furthered shortly after Wesberry was decided; Reynolds v. Sims (1964) [21] held that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause [22] legally required voting districts to be roughly equal in population. [23] These cases show that the growth of the American electorate warranted judicial examination to continue mitigating factionalism; districts are now limited in their ability to become dominant voting blocks, which was only possible due to American growth.

Despite this regard for modernity at the state level, the same attention has not been paid to equal representation in national elections. The Electoral College has not been evaluated in a modern context, effectively creating factions based on individual voting power. Pulitzer Prize-winning professor Louis Menand explains that the formula the Electoral College has always used to allocate electors — one for each of a state’s congressional seats plus one for each of its two senators [24] — causes a vote in Wyoming to carry significantly more weight than a vote in California due to its smaller population density. [25] As a result, millions of Americans in populous states have their votes devalued compared to those in sparsely populated states. [26] Valuing votes differently directly contradicts “one person, one vote” and the Equal Protection Clause, as a vote in a smaller state has a more direct impact on the presidential candidate receiving the state’s electoral votes compared to a vote in a large state. [27] This not only exacerbates the Electoral College’s proven factioning of states between populus and sparse but also pits individual voters against each other in a way that creates factions based on influence in presidential elections.

Proponents of the Electoral College may counter the claim that the Electoral College has not seen productive legal scrutiny as a national mechanism against factionalism. In 2020, a representative issue regarding rogue electors was brought to the Supreme Court; the ruling of Chiafalo v. Washington [28] allows state legislators to intervene when an elector votes against the constituents they were appointed to represent. [29] Chiafalo attempts to eliminate factionalism between voters and their electors; electors are now forced to abide by the people’s will, whereas they previously could elevate themselves to statesmen and vote autonomously. While this alteration to the Electoral College does align with Madisonian ideals of fair representation [30] and pushing against a tyrannical minority, [31] it does not address any of the factionalism it causes on a national level. Chiafalo keeps citizens and electors of individual states equal, but it does not make individuals or states equal nationally. This is particularly alarming because the Electoral College exists only for a national election; if it continues to cause nationwide factionalism, its purpose to American society is not being realized. There is nothing to change about the structure of the Electoral College that will fix the factionalism it causes between states, political groups, and states. Thus, rulings like Chiafalo become nothing short of “Band-Aids” for a national crisis of unequal representation.

The Electoral College was established to ensure balanced representation across the nation, bridging the divide between densely populated cities and rural areas. [32] It is not 1787 anymore. Today’s America is vastly more complex and interconnected, and the Electoral College has become an outdated mechanism that no longer serves its intended purpose. This system directly contradicts established legal precedent, subverts the ideals of a national election, and disproportionately empowers certain states over others. As a consequence, the Electoral College amplifies national divisions rather than mitigating them. Thus, its role as a modern actor against factionalism is legally indefensible.

Notes [1] Britannica, s.v. "Democracy: Factions and Parties," last modified March 17, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Factions-and-parties.

[2] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.” Text, December 29, 1998. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp.

[3] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.”

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 1.

[7] John Hardin Young, "Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?" Experience Magazine, January 1, 2024, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/senior_lawyers/resources/experience/2024-january-february/why-do-we-still-have-electoral-college/.​American Bar Association

[8] U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 1.

[9] ShareAmerica. “What Is a ‘Swing State’?” ShareAmerica, May 2, 2024. https://share.america.gov/what-is-a-swing-state/.

[10] ShareAmerica, “What Is a ‘Swing State’?”

[11] Ibid.

[12] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.

[13] Ibid.

[14] ShareAmerica, “What Is a ‘Swing State’?”

[15] Ballotpedia. “Election Results, 2024: Analysis of Voter Turnout in the 2024 General Election.” Accessed March 9, 2025. https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout_in_the_2024_general_election.

[16] John Hardin Young, "Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?"

[17] Cornell Law School. “One-Person, One-Vote Rule.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed March 8, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule.

[18] Justia Law. “Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).” Accessed March 8, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/1/. Facts: James P. Wesberry, Jr., a resident of Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, filed suit against the Governor and other state officials, challenging the state's method of apportioning congressional districts. Wesberry's district had a population two to three times larger than some other Georgia districts, meaning his vote carried less weight. He argued that this imbalance diluted his right to vote compared to residents in less-populated districts. Question: Did Georgia’s congressional districting violate Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that Representatives be chosen “by the People of the several States,” and therefore imply equal representation for equal numbers of people? Majority: 6-3 in favor of Wesberry, written by Justice Black.

[19] Justia Law. “Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).” Accessed March 8, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/1/.

[20] Cornell Law School. “One-Person, One-Vote Rule.”

[21] Oyez, "Reynolds v. Sims," accessed April 8, 2025, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23. Facts: M.O. Sims, David J. Vann, John McConnell, and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the 1961 apportionment of the state legislature. Lines dividing electoral districts had resulted in large population differences among them. The state constitution mandated at least one representative per county and senatorial district. The district in Jefferson County (near Birmingham) contained 41 times as many eligible voters as those in another Alabama district. Sims and the other voters argued that this lack of proportionality prevented them from properly participating in a republican, representative form of government. Question: Did Alabama's apportionment violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by ordering at least one representative per county/creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators despite population variances? Majority: 8-1 in favor of Sims, written by Justice Warren.

[22] Definition: In United States law, the constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons.

[23] Oyez, "Reynolds v. Sims," accessed April 8, 2025, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23.

[24] Menand, Louis. “Is It Time to Torch the Constitution?” The New Yorker, September 23, 2024. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/30/constitution-book-reviews-chemerinsky-pierson-schickler.

[25] Menand, “Is It Time to Torch the Constitution?”

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Oyez. “Chiafalo v. Washington.” Accessed March 8, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-465. Facts: Petitioner Chiafolo and others were nominated as presidential electors for the Washington State Democratic Party in 2016. When Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine won the popular vote in Washington State, Washington law required electors to cast their ballots for Clinton/Kaine.They instead voted for Colin Powell for President and a different individual for Vice President. The Washington secretary of state fined the electors $1,000 each for voting against the nominee of their party, which violated state law. The electors challenged the law imposing the fine as violating the First Amendment. An administrative law judge upheld the fine, and a state trial court on appeal affirmed. Question: Does a state law requiring presidential electors to vote the way state law directs or else be subject to a fine violate the electors’ First Amendment rights? Majority Opinion: Unanimous in favor of Washington, written by Justice Kagan.

[29] Oyez. “Chiafalo v. Washington.”

[30] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.”

[31] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.”

[32] John Hardin Young, "Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?"

Bibliography

Ballotpedia. “Election Results, 2024: Analysis of Voter Turnout in the 2024 General Election.” Accessed March 9, 2025. https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout_in_the_2024_general_election.

Brennan Center For Justice. “The Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of Color | Brennan Center for Justice,” January 10, 2022. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color.

Britannica, s.v. "Democracy: Factions and Parties," last modified March 17, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Factions-and-parties.

Caplan, Anna. “Why Do We Have the Electoral College? CNN’s John King Explains the ‘Compromise’ That Got Us Here (Exclusive).” People.com, October 28, 2024. https://people.com/john-king-explains-electoral-college-pros-cons-history-8725918.

Cornell Law School. “One-Person, One-Vote Rule.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed March 8, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule.

Davis, Wes. “Philadelphia DA Sues Elon Musk to Stop $1 Million Election Lottery.” The Verge, October 28, 2024. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/28/24281752/elon-musk-pennsylvania-election-2024-lottery-lawsuit.

Geoghegan, Tom. “What Are Harris and Trump’s Policies?” BBC, November 2, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy343z53l1o.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.” Text, December 29, 1998. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp.

Hughes, Alyssa Lukpat, Lindsay Wise and Siobhan. “What Is the Electoral College and How Does It Work?” WSJ, November 5, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/electoral-college-election-2024-e7c45ff6.

Justia Law. “Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).” Accessed March 8, 2025. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/1/.

Menand, Louis. “Is It Time to Torch the Constitution?” The New Yorker, September 23, 2024. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/30/constitution-book-reviews-chemerinsky-pierson-schickler.

Oyez. “Chiafalo v. Washington.” Accessed March 8, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-465.

ShareAmerica. “What Is a ‘Swing State’?” ShareAmerica, May 2, 2024. https://share.america.gov/what-is-a-swing-state/.