Few parts of the American political system create as much confusion—or as many arguments—as the Electoral College.
Every four years, Americans vote for president, television networks display colorful maps of red and blue states, and everyone starts talking about the magic number of 270 electoral votes. Yet many voters are still unsure about what the Electoral College actually does.
Some people believe the Electoral College directly ignores the votes of ordinary Americans. Others think electors are free to choose any presidential candidate they want. Still others believe the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide automatically becomes president.
None of those statements tells the whole story.
The Electoral College is certainly open to debate. Americans have argued about its advantages and disadvantages for generations. But before deciding whether the system should be preserved, changed, or replaced, it helps to separate some common myths from the facts.
Myth #1: Americans Directly Elect The President
Fact: Voters Are Technically Choosing Presidential Electors
When Americans go to the polls in a presidential election, the names of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates appear on the ballot.
But constitutionally, voters are selecting a group of electors pledged to those candidates.
Those electors later cast the official votes for president and vice president.
The Electoral College currently consists of 538 electors, and a presidential candidate needs a majority—normally 270 electoral votes—to win.
Each state receives a number of electoral votes equal to its total representation in Congress.
For example, if a state has 10 members of the House of Representatives and two senators, it receives 12 electoral votes.
Washington, D.C., also receives three electoral votes under the 23rd Amendment.
So although we commonly say Americans “elect the president,” the process is actually indirect.
Voters choose electors, and those electors formally elect the president.
Myth #2: The Candidate Who Wins The National Popular Vote Always Becomes President
Fact: A Candidate Can Win The Popular Vote And Lose The Election
This is probably the most famous misconception about presidential elections.
The United States does not determine the presidency by simply adding together every vote nationwide and declaring the candidate with the largest total the winner.
Instead, the election is decided through electoral votes awarded state by state.
That means a candidate can receive more votes nationwide while receiving fewer electoral votes.
According to the U.S. House of Representatives’ historical records, this has happened five times: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.
That possibility is one of the biggest criticisms of the Electoral College.
Supporters argue that presidents are elected through a federal system consisting of individual states rather than through one nationwide election.
Critics respond that the person receiving the most votes from Americans nationwide should become president.
Whatever side you take, the important fact is that the national popular vote does not legally determine the winner.
Electoral votes do.
Myth #3: Every State Uses The Same Winner-Take-All System
Fact: Maine And Nebraska Use A Different Method
Most states operate under a winner-take-all approach.
Generally, the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in a state receives all of that state’s electoral votes.
But there are two exceptions: Maine and Nebraska.
In those states, two electoral votes go to the statewide winner. Additional electoral votes are awarded according to the winner of each congressional district.
Maine currently has four electoral votes, while Nebraska has five. Their votes therefore can be divided between presidential candidates.
That has happened in recent elections.
In fact, both Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes in the 2024 presidential election.
States are not constitutionally required to use the winner-take-all method. States have considerable authority over how their electors are appointed, subject to constitutional and federal legal requirements.
Myth #4: Electoral Votes Are Distributed Equally Among The States
Fact: Population Matters, But Every State Also Gets Electoral Votes Connected To Its Two Senators
States do not receive the same number of electoral votes.
California, Texas, Florida, and New York have considerably more electoral votes than smaller states such as Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, and Alaska.
The reason is that a state’s electoral total is tied to its congressional representation.
Every state receives:
One electoral vote for each member of the House of Representatives, plus two representing its senators.
Because House representation is based largely on population, more populous states generally receive more electoral votes.
However, every state has two senators regardless of population.
That means small states receive slightly more electoral weight per resident than they would under a purely population-based national vote.
The current allocations, based on the 2020 Census, are being used for the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections.
This structure creates another major debate surrounding the Electoral College.
Supporters say it recognizes the role of states within the federal system. Critics argue that votes should carry equal weight regardless of where a person lives.
Myth #5: Electors Can Simply Ignore The Voters And Choose Whoever They Want
Fact: States Can Require Electors To Honor Their Pledges
You’ve probably heard the term “faithless elector.”
It refers to an elector who votes for someone other than the candidate the elector was expected or pledged to support.
Faithless electors have appeared occasionally in American history, which has led some people to imagine a scenario in which dozens of electors suddenly overturn the result of an election.
Modern law makes that far more difficult.
In Chiafalo v. Washington, decided in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states may enforce laws requiring presidential electors to honor their pledges. States may impose penalties or replace electors who refuse to vote as required under applicable state law.
Elector rules vary among states, so it would be inaccurate to say every elector operates under exactly the same restrictions.
But electors are not simply 538 independent individuals who can casually substitute their own presidential preferences for the results of an election.
Myth #6: Congress Chooses The President Every Four Years
Fact: Congress Counts The Electoral Votes, But Normally Does Not Choose The Winner
Congress plays an important role after the election, but under normal circumstances it does not decide who becomes president.
Electors meet in their respective states and cast their votes.
Those electoral votes are then transmitted for the official counting process in Congress.
If one candidate receives the required majority of electoral votes, that candidate is elected president.
But there is an unusual constitutional backup plan.
If no presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives.
And here is where things become particularly interesting.
Each state delegation receives one vote, rather than each House member receiving an individual vote.
The House chooses from among the top three presidential electoral-vote recipients.
The Senate separately chooses the vice president from the top two vice-presidential electoral-vote recipients.
The House has actually decided a presidential election on rare occasions, including the disputed election of 1824, when no candidate won an Electoral College majority.
It is possible, but extremely uncommon.
Myth #7: The Electoral College Was Designed For Only One Reason
Fact: Its Creation Involved Several Political And Constitutional Considerations
It is tempting to describe the Electoral College with one simple explanation.
History was considerably messier.
During the Constitutional Convention, the founders debated different ways of choosing the president.
Among the possibilities were presidential selection by Congress and forms of popular election.
The Electoral College developed as part of a broader compromise over presidential selection and the relationship between the states and the federal government.
The National Archives describes it as a compromise between electing the president through Congress and electing the president through a popular vote of qualified citizens.
Arguments about the founders’ motivations continue today, especially when discussing representation, federalism, political power, and slavery.
It is reasonable to examine all those historical factors.
What is misleading is reducing the Electoral College’s creation to one single sentence or one single motive.
Like much of the Constitution, it emerged from complicated political negotiations.
Myth #8: The Electoral College Makes Voters In Certain States Completely Irrelevant
Fact: Every Vote Counts Toward A State’s Result, Although Campaign Attention Is Uneven
This myth contains a legitimate concern but takes it too far.
Presidential campaigns clearly do not spend equal amounts of time and money in all 50 states.
Candidates usually concentrate heavily on competitive states where the outcome is uncertain.
A Republican candidate is unlikely to spend as much time campaigning in a strongly Democratic state as in a competitive battleground. The reverse is also true for a Democratic candidate in a strongly Republican state.
That leaves many voters feeling ignored.
However, saying their votes “don’t count” isn’t accurate.
Their votes are part of determining which candidate wins their state and therefore which electors are selected.
The more precise criticism is that the Electoral College encourages campaigns to focus disproportionately on competitive states rather than equally courting voters everywhere.
That’s an important distinction.
Myth #9: The Electoral College Gives Small States Complete Control Over Presidential Elections
Fact: Large States Still Carry Enormous Electoral Power
Small states receive a minimum of three electoral votes because every state has at least one representative and two senators.
That gives smaller states greater representation per person than they would receive under a strictly proportional system.
But that does not mean small states control presidential elections.
Large states still hold enormous electoral prizes.
Under the current allocation, California has 54 electoral votes, Texas has 40, Florida has 30, and New York has 28.
A presidential candidate cannot realistically build a winning Electoral College coalition by focusing only on the country’s smallest states.
The system creates advantages and disadvantages for different groups of voters, but describing it as simply “small states choosing the president” greatly oversimplifies how presidential campaigns build electoral majorities.
So, Is The Electoral College Fair?
That question moves us from facts into political opinion.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
Supporters say the Electoral College reinforces America’s federal structure, requires presidential candidates to build geographically broad coalitions, and prevents politics from being dominated entirely by the largest population centers.
Critics argue that a nationwide popular vote would be more democratic, that every vote should have equal influence regardless of state, and that the candidate receiving the most votes from Americans should win the presidency.
Those are legitimate debates.
But productive political debate becomes much easier when everyone begins with the same basic facts.
The Electoral College is not a physical institution somewhere in Washington.
It does not necessarily elect the national popular-vote winner.
Most states use winner-take-all rules, but Maine and Nebraska do not.
Electors do not normally have unrestricted freedom to disregard election results.
And Congress only chooses the president under unusual circumstances when no candidate receives the necessary Electoral College majority.
You don’t have to like the Electoral College to understand how it works.
And you don’t have to oppose it to recognize its unusual features.
Whether America should keep, reform, or replace the system is ultimately a political and constitutional question.
But before having that debate, separating the myths from the facts is a pretty good place to start.