PETE BUTTIGIEG WANTS TO END THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: WHY SHOULD ONE AMERICAN'S VOTE COUNT MORE THAN ANOTHER'S?

 

Pete Buttigieg

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is once again challenging one of the most controversial features of American presidential elections: the Electoral College.

And his argument raises a question that Americans should be asking regardless of their political party: Why shouldn't the person who receives the most votes across the country become president?

Buttigieg has argued that eliminating the Electoral College and replacing it with a nationwide popular vote would make presidential elections fairer, force candidates to compete for voters in every state, and give millions of Americans a reason to feel that their votes actually matter.

In August 2026, Buttigieg discussed the proposal during an appearance on Steven Bartlett's Diary of a CEO podcast. He questioned why the idea of electing the candidate who receives the most votes is considered radical.

He made another interesting observation: Democrats would have to campaign in Texas, Republicans would have to campaign in New York, and candidates would suddenly have a reason to reach voters who are currently overlooked.

FIVE TIMES THE POPULAR VOTE AND THE PRESIDENCY DID NOT GO TO THE SAME PERSON

This isn't just a theoretical argument. American history provides some extraordinary examples.

There have been five commonly cited presidential elections in which the candidate who received the most popular votes did not become president.

Here is the history:

1824 – Andrew Jackson: Jackson received more popular and electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, but neither won an Electoral College majority. The election went to the House of Representatives, which selected Adams.

1876 – Samuel J. Tilden: Tilden received more popular votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, but Hayes became president following a disputed election and electoral resolution.

1888 – Grover Cleveland: Cleveland received more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison, but Harrison won the Electoral College.

2000 – Al Gore: Gore received approximately 540,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush, but Bush won the presidency.

2016 – Hillary Clinton: Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Donald Trump, but Trump won the Electoral College and became president.

There is an important distinction with 1824: Jackson did not win an Electoral College majority, and the House made the final decision. Nevertheless, it is traditionally included among the five elections in which the popular-vote leader did not become president.

Think about that. Five times in American history, the person receiving the most votes nationwide did not end up in the White House.

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THAT ONLY CARES ABOUT A HANDFUL OF STATES

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Electoral College is what it does to presidential campaigns.

Every four years, Americans watch candidates spend enormous amounts of money and time visiting essentially the same battleground states.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina become the centers of the political universe.

Why?

Because winning a relatively small number of closely divided states can determine who gets the 270 electoral votes needed to become president.

Meanwhile, millions of voters in states considered safely Democratic or Republican are largely ignored.

A Democrat running for president has little incentive to campaign extensively in New York, California or Illinois. A Republican has little incentive to spend much time in Texas or Oklahoma if those states are considered safely Republican.

But what about the millions of Republicans living in New York? What about Democrats in Texas? What about independent voters in states that campaigns have already written off?

They pay taxes. They work. They raise families. They vote.

Yet their presidential campaigns often receive little attention because their states are considered politically predictable.

An Associated Press analysis of the 2024 campaign found that roughly three-quarters of more than 200 campaign stops occurred in just seven battleground states, representing only about 18 percent of the country's population.

That is an extraordinary concentration of political attention.

Imagine what presidential campaigns might look like if every vote carried equal weight. Candidates would have to compete for voters in all 50 states, not just the places where a few thousand votes might change the electoral outcome.

THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL PROBLEM

There is another part of the system that deserves more attention.

In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the presidential candidate who wins the statewide popular vote receives all of that state's electoral votes.

Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions, using a system that also awards some electoral votes by congressional district.

Consider California. A Republican presidential candidate could receive millions of votes there and still receive no electoral votes from the state. The same thing happens to Democratic voters in heavily Republican states.

Those voters haven't disappeared. Their votes simply don't help their candidate win any of that state's electoral votes.

The National Archives has even documented how the 2016 election produced a striking example: Clinton received more combined votes than Trump in California, Pennsylvania and Texas, but the winner-take-all system awarded her California's electors while Trump received the electors from Pennsylvania and Texas.

This is one of the fundamental problems with the current system.

A presidential election should be about counting Americans, not counting which states they happen to live in.

WHAT ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT?

There are legitimate constitutional and political arguments on the other side.

Critics of eliminating the Electoral College say it protects smaller states from being overwhelmed by heavily populated states. They argue that the Founders created a system in which states, not simply individual voters, have an important role in selecting the president.

Some conservatives also worry that a nationwide popular vote would encourage candidates to concentrate on major metropolitan areas.

Those concerns deserve discussion.

But the counterargument is equally important: Under the current system, candidates already concentrate their attention on a relatively small collection of competitive areas. Millions of voters outside those areas receive little campaign attention.

And a nationwide popular vote would not mean that candidates could win by campaigning only in New York or Los Angeles. They would still need to persuade voters across the country to build a winning national total.

THERE IS ALREADY AN EFFORT TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM

Buttigieg isn't alone in wanting reform.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an effort by states to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote.

The compact would take effect once participating states collectively control at least 270 electoral votes. Recent Associated Press reporting puts the compact at 222 electoral votes, with additional political developments potentially moving it closer to that threshold.

Opponents argue that such an arrangement could undermine the role of individual states and raise constitutional questions. Supporters say it offers a way to make every vote count equally without immediately amending the Constitution.

A constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College would be another route, but it would face a very difficult process requiring approval by two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states.

ONE VOTE SHOULD BE ONE VOTE

Here is what this debate really comes down to.

Why should a Republican living in Manhattan feel that his presidential vote is practically meaningless? Why should a Democrat living in Texas feel that the presidential election is already decided before the campaign even begins?

Why should a presidential candidate spend more time in a handful of states than in the rest of America?

The presidency belongs to the entire country. It should not be decided by a political map that turns certain states into prizes and others into afterthoughts.

Pete Buttigieg is raising an issue that goes beyond Democrats and Republicans. The question is whether Americans believe that every citizen should have an equal voice in selecting the person who leads the nation.

You can support Donald Trump, a Democratic candidate, an independent, or someone else entirely. That should make no difference when your ballot is counted.

ONE PERSON. ONE VOTE. ONE NATIONAL ELECTION.

Isn't that what democracy is supposed to mean?