Votes That Don't Count: The Flaws of the Electoral College

November 5th, 2024 was a day marked by a myriad of emotions. For some, the election represented the resurgence of a startling set of values and beliefs. Yet for the 76.4 million who voted for the winning candidate, it represented that America was ready to set out for a new future. Regardless of all of these beliefs over the results of the election, one thing that caught the public’s eyes in the days leading up to the election, the days after the election, and election day itself, was the focus on just seven states across the nation that would decide the result. The election of 2024, and its recent predecessors, have been marked by intense political polarization and nail-biting margins. But before one can even begin to discuss how polarization impacts the election, it is crucial to first investigate the Electoral College.

In America, national elections are decided by the electoral college, a system that assigns each state (and Washington D.C.) a certain number of “electors,” relatively proportional to the state's population. Once the state commences voting for a certain candidate, the electors all cast their ballot for that candidate. Once a candidate receives 270 electoral votes, they have crossed the threshold to become president of the United States. This system was created by the founding fathers to represent the interests of the entire country, ensuring the voices of smaller states are heard. 

In the modern era, however, the Electoral College has been subject to admonishment. Elections have been getting closer and closer, with every election since the year 2000 being within a five percent difference of the popular vote. However, the electoral college disregards the popular vote entirely, as the objective is not to win a plurality of votes nationwide, but rather to vote on a few specific ‘swing states’. In modern American politics, elections have become increasingly polarized. It’s incredibly easy to predict who will win the majority of states in the nation. 

Everyone knows the Democrats have strongholds on the West Coast, and that Republicans will sweep the South because, in most states, the election just isn’t close. The majority of states will vote for the same party over and over due to entrenched beliefs, population demographics, and even geographic location. As a result, the election comes down to the few states that can change. These states are known as “swing states,”. Swing states change from election to election. In this election, pundits deemed Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Wisconsin as swing states. In previous years, states like Ohio, Florida, and even Minnesota were all deemed to be swing states. The fact that these few swing states determine the outcome of the election for everyone ultimately disenfranchises millions nationwide and discourages political participation in other states because of the notion that if one doesn’t live in the swing state, they have no impact on the election. This statement has especially rang true in recent years. 

During 2000 and 2016, the Democrats won the popular vote and lost the election. In 2020, Biden decisively won the popular vote, but the election came down to a few thousand votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. In 2024, Trump won the Electoral College by decisive margins, despite not doing exceptionally well in the popular vote, winning by a 1.8% margin. The result of this system has critics claiming that the system is rife with a lack of representation and even melancholia amongst the electorate.

In addition to the Electoral College’s difficulties in representing voters, one must also question its archaic roots. For one, the Electoral College was created during a time when the relationship between the states and the federal government was vastly different, with federalism being more unbridled, and the United States being less of a republic but controlled more so from the bottom up. That’s certainly not the case in the status quo, with the federal government having more power. 

Furthermore, the electoral college is rooted in Southern slave states wishing to maximize their power, as they had large populations due to large swathes of enslaved people, while simultaneously not allowing those enslaved people to vote. As a result, the Electoral College maintained the institution of slavery for years upon years. Though one may argue that the Electoral College has changed, and isn’t used to uphold slavery anymore, it’s undeniable that the Electoral College system in the status quo is also used to give smaller states more power, in turn disenfranchising large, densely populated cities, that are composed of primarily black and brown residents. Furthermore, changing demographics and population distribution nationwide necessitate a change in how the government represents its constituents.

The Electoral College is a system mired with a laundry list of issues. Its inability to properly represent the electorate and its archaic origins has prompted millions of Americans to ask the question, “Why does the American populace put up with a system that ultimately hurts more people than it helps?” 

The Military Industrial Complex by Ian Xu 

The "Military-Industrial Complex" (MIC) refers to the frightening relationship between a nation's military, government policymakers, and defense contractors. In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address of 1961, he warned about the dangers posed by this alliance, fearing that unchecked military spending and lobbying, an attempt to influence government action through either written or oral communication, could distort national priorities and lead to corruption. Unfortunately, 60 years later, the subject of his concerns has only grown. 

With a defense funding budget for 2024 exceeding $850 billion, the U.S. by far spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined. How is this possible? The MIC thrives on the need to always increase military readiness, improve modernization, and strengthen security measures, ensuring a steady flow of billions in contracts to large corporations such as Lockheed Martin securing $30 billion in defense contracts, Northrop Grumman receiving $705 million missile contract, and Raytheon recently $1.2 billion to supply Germany. 

Sadly, these “threats” the U.S. prepares against are often exaggerated and ironically produce the threats it describes, identifying foreign “danger” that becomes self-fulfilling through U.S. aggression and conflict spirals. 

To add salt to the wound, these companies spend millions on lobbying efforts and political donations, sealing the deal on their interests which are always protected by key policymakers and government officials who control military spending and defense policy. During the 2020 campaign cycle alone, the defense sector contributed over $30 million to congressional campaigns. 

Though legal, these contributions have sparked questions about the impartiality of lawmakers tasked with overseeing military spending. There is a troubling pattern when lawmakers who receive significant campaign contributions from defense contractors vote in favor of increasing the defense budget or supporting military interventions abroad. These decisions often align with the financial interests of the contractors who fund their campaigns. For example, Representative Mike Rogers, who received the most donations from the defense industry in 2022, advocated for a $30 billion defense budget increase, surpassing what the Pentagon requested. 

In addition to campaign contributions, another major manifestation of MIC-related corruption is known as the "revolving door" between Congress, the Pentagon, and the defense industry. Many former members of Congress or the Pentagon take high positions in the private sector after leaving office, often with defense contractors. Likewise, executives from these companies frequently assume government positions, creating a feedback loop that prioritizes defense industry profits over the public good.

This revolving door creates a conflict of interest and opens the door to corruption. Lawmakers and defense officials wishing to enter the private sector are then incentivized to make decisions that benefit defense companies, knowing that high-positioned and high-paying job offers await them after their public service ends.

However, this is not the only way corruption persists. Another dimension is the conflict of interest in stock ownership. Many Congress members hold stocks in defense contractors, which creates direct financial incentives to vote in ways that benefit the defense industry. For example, votes to increase defense budgets or authorize military actions that require new defense contracts can directly influence the stock prices of companies like Lockheed Martin or Boeing which these congress members would profit from.

While the STOCK Act of 2012 was intended to curb insider trading and increase transparency by requiring members of Congress to disclose their financial transactions, loopholes, which Capitol Flashlight has talked about in our article Broken Promises of The STOCK Act, have allowed many lawmakers to continue profiting from defense stocks without facing significant consequences.

But what is so bad about the MIC? First, it distorts national priorities. Instead of using taxpayer money to invest in programs that benefit the broader population, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, the U.S. government chooses to throw billions into defense. 

Secondly, the MIC’s influence exacerbates international tensions by promoting a foreign policy centered on militarization and intervention. Defense contractors profit from the sale of arms and military technology, which creates an incentive to promote policies that encourage conflict, arms races, and militarization abroad. This not only destabilizes regions but also increases the likelihood of war, putting billions of lives at risk for the sake of corporate profits.

The Military-Industrial Complex has become deeply entrenched in the U.S. government and its influence on Congress has led to widespread corruption. While defense is undoubtedly a crucial component of national security, left unchecked, it creates an unnecessary trade-off with other priorities and fuels conflicts. How long will it take for more reforms? 

There’s a common economic question that asks if an economy should be focused on producing more guns or butter, at the rate the US is militarizing, it seems as if we are preparing for war.