U.S. And International Politics

[Charles Collins]

I wonder if any states have ever tried to adopt anything similar to the electoral college for electing their governors?
I live in a state where 57% to 60% of the population lives in one city’s metropolitan area. It seems to me like an electoral college type of system might help even out things.

Well, Google AI answered my question:

Yes. Both Mississippi and Georgia previously used voting systems that functioned similarly to the U.S. Electoral College to decide their governors.

Mississippi

Until it was repealed by voters in 2020, Mississippi used an electoral-style process established under its 1890 Constitution. To win the governorship, a candidate was required to win both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of the 122 state House of Representatives districts. If no candidate won both, the race was sent to the state House to decide the winner. This system was originally designed to dilute the voting power of African Americans and protect rural interests, and it actually decided the 1999 gubernatorial election. You can read more about its repeal on the Mississippi Free Press.

Georgia

 From 1917 to 1962, Georgia used a system for statewide primary elections called the "County Unit System," which explicitly functioned like an Electoral College. All 159 counties were split into three categories (Urban, Town, and Rural) and assigned unit votes on a winner-take-all basis. Because rural counties were vastly overrepresented, candidates could win the popular vote while losing the election if they failed to secure a majority of the 410 unit votes. This system was ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more about its history through the New Georgia Encyclopedia.

[John Corbett]

Well, Google AI answered my question:

Yes. Both Mississippi and Georgia previously used voting systems that functioned similarly to the U.S. Electoral College to decide their governors.

Mississippi

Until it was repealed by voters in 2020, Mississippi used an electoral-style process established under its 1890 Constitution. To win the governorship, a candidate was required to win both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of the 122 state House of Representatives districts. If no candidate won both, the race was sent to the state House to decide the winner. This system was originally designed to dilute the voting power of African Americans and protect rural interests, and it actually decided the 1999 gubernatorial election. You can read more about its repeal on the Mississippi Free Press.

Georgia

 From 1917 to 1962, Georgia used a system for statewide primary elections called the "County Unit System," which explicitly functioned like an Electoral College. All 159 counties were split into three categories (Urban, Town, and Rural) and assigned unit votes on a winner-take-all basis. Because rural counties were vastly overrepresented, candidates could win the popular vote while losing the election if they failed to secure a majority of the 410 unit votes. This system was ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more about its history through the New Georgia Encyclopedia.

In the 19th century, it was far more common for a state's electoral votes to be proportioned like what Maine and Nebraska do now. States began to realize that system dilutes their electoral votes. For example, Florida delivers all 29 of its electoral votes on a winner take all basis. If the proportioned their votes, it might break 17-12 for example. That means the winner of the state only gets a +5 advantage instead of a +29. It's easy to understand why most states are winner take all.

[Royell Storing]

  The only reason we hear complaints about the electoral college is because Trump Defeated Hillary that way. If this was a legit issue, these same complainers would also be all over Every state getting 2 U.S. Senators regardless of their population. This is ALL ABOUT TRUMP. TDS continues running wild.

[Charles Collins]

In the 19th century, it was far more common for a state's electoral votes to be proportioned like what Maine and Nebraska do now. States began to realize that system dilutes their electoral votes. For example, Florida delivers all 29 of its electoral votes on a winner take all basis. If the proportioned their votes, it might break 17-12 for example. That means the winner of the state only gets a +5 advantage instead of a +29. It's easy to understand why most states are winner take all.

Here’s Google AI’s response to why Georgia’s county unit voting system was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Georgia's county unit state-wide voting system was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1963 landmark case Gray v. Sanders (stemming from a 1962 federal district court ruling). The Court ruled the system violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, establishing the historic "one person, one vote" constitutional doctrine.The system was ruled unconstitutional for the following reasons:Massive Vote Dilution: Under the county unit system (governing state-wide primary elections), each county was assigned a set number of "unit votes," and the popular vote winner in each county won all of its unit votes. This meant sparsely populated rural counties had vastly disproportionate political power compared to heavily populated urban counties like Fulton.Control by a Minority of the Population: The imbalance was so extreme that rural counties holding only one-third of the state's population controlled a majority of the unit votes.Violation of Political Equality: The Supreme Court concluded that once a geographical unit is established to elect representatives, all participating voters must be granted an equal voice. The Court found that factors like an individual’s geographic location cannot be constitutionally used to diminish the weight of their ballot.Undemocratic Outcomes: The system allowed a candidate to win the majority of the popular vote state-wide but still lose the election if a rival secured more county unit votes.You can read the full Supreme Court decision in Gray v. Sanders (372 U.S. 368) via Justia, or explore the New Georgia Encyclopedia for a comprehensive breakdown of the case and its historical context.


So this makes me wonder why the U.S. electoral college isn’t subject to a similar ruling. Not that I am against the U.S. electoral college, just curious…

[John Corbett]

Here’s Google AI’s response to why Georgia’s county unit voting system was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Georgia's county unit state-wide voting system was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1963 landmark case Gray v. Sanders (stemming from a 1962 federal district court ruling). The Court ruled the system violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, establishing the historic "one person, one vote" constitutional doctrine.The system was ruled unconstitutional for the following reasons:Massive Vote Dilution: Under the county unit system (governing state-wide primary elections), each county was assigned a set number of "unit votes," and the popular vote winner in each county won all of its unit votes. This meant sparsely populated rural counties had vastly disproportionate political power compared to heavily populated urban counties like Fulton.Control by a Minority of the Population: The imbalance was so extreme that rural counties holding only one-third of the state's population controlled a majority of the unit votes.Violation of Political Equality: The Supreme Court concluded that once a geographical unit is established to elect representatives, all participating voters must be granted an equal voice. The Court found that factors like an individual’s geographic location cannot be constitutionally used to diminish the weight of their ballot.Undemocratic Outcomes: The system allowed a candidate to win the majority of the popular vote state-wide but still lose the election if a rival secured more county unit votes.You can read the full Supreme Court decision in Gray v. Sanders (372 U.S. 368) via Justia, or explore the New Georgia Encyclopedia for a comprehensive breakdown of the case and its historical context.


So this makes me wonder why the U.S. electoral college isn’t subject to a similar ruling. Not that I am against the U.S. electoral college, just curious…

It's very simple. The electoral college is mandated by the Constitution. How can something that is dictated by the Constitution be unconstitutional.

PS.  I discovered something curious last year. The term "electoral college" is nowhere in the Constitution. The Constitution simply refers to them as "Electors". Apparently, that name was given to the electors after the ratification and it stuck. There seems to be some historical documentation that the term "electoral college" was used during discussions at the Constitutional Convention but it was never codified into the text of the Constitution.

[Charles Collins]

It's very simple. The electoral college is mandated by the Constitution. How can something that is dictated by the Constitution be unconstitutional.

PS.  I discovered something curious last year. The term "electoral college" is nowhere in the Constitution. The Constitution simply refers to them as "Electors". Apparently, that name was given to the electors after the ratification and it stuck. There seems to be some historical documentation that the term "electoral college" was used during discussions at the Constitutional Convention but it was never codified into the text of the Constitution.

Well, Google AI seems to agree with your answer.

The U.S. Electoral College is explicitly established by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, making it structurally immune to claims of unconstitutionality. In contrast, state-level systems, like Georgia’s former county-unit system, were invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.1. The Supremacy of the U.S. ConstitutionThe Electoral College is a fundamental design of the nation's highest legal document, making it legal by definition. The Supreme Court cannot declare a specific constitutional provision unconstitutional because the Constitution is the ultimate source of the Court's own authority.2. The 14th Amendment and State GovernmentsState election structures are not afforded this blanket constitutional protection. In the 1963 landmark case Gray v. Sanders, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia's county-unit system—which assigned more voting power to rural counties—ruling that it violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Court established the "one person, one vote" rule, which dictates that within a single state's voting boundaries, every individual's vote must carry the exact same weight.3. Different Sovereign EntitiesThe distinction comes down to the entity in question:States are subordinate to the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, meaning their internal electoral maps and statewide elections must adhere strictly to equal protection and the "one person, one vote" standard.The Federal Government operates under the direct rules of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the apportionment of Electoral College votes among the 50 states is a constitutional compromise, not a statutory violation.While critics frequently point to the disparity in voting power under the Electoral College—where less populated states wield more influence per capita than highly populated ones—the system remains legal as long as it is embedded directly within the supreme law of the land.


But, I still do not understand why it is considered to be a “stroke of genius” when used for the U.S. voting system; while a similar voting system for the state of Georgia is considered to be unconstitutional. Here’s what Google AI says about the apparent hypocrisy:

Whether the system is hypocritical is a matter of ongoing political and legal debate, as the U.S. Constitution uses fundamentally different rules for national and state-wide elections. While the Electoral College explicitly weights votes by geography rather than population for the presidency, the Supreme Court has ruled that state-wide elections for state and federal offices must follow the "one person, one vote" principle.The Legal Conflict and DifferencesCritics argue the system is inherently hypocritical because the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, yet this concept is applied differently based on the office being elected:Presidential Elections: The Constitution created the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1 as a federalist compromise. It awards electors to states based on their total representation in Congress (two senators plus the number of House representatives). This means less-populous states wield disproportionately more voting power per capita than highly populated ones.State and Congressional Elections: The Supreme Court effectively struck down similar, geographically-weighted systems for state-level elections in a series of landmark cases in the 1960s (such as Gray v. Sanders for state primaries and Reynolds v. Sims for legislative districts). The Court ruled that these systems violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. They established that electoral districts must be roughly equal in population—ensuring a principle of "one person, one vote" for state legislatures, state-wide offices, and the U.S. House of Representatives.The Justification and Push for ReformSupporters of the Electoral College system argue it is not hypocritical because the United States is a constitutional republic made up of independent states, rather than a pure direct democracy. They contend the system ensures that regional interests and less-populated states are not completely overridden by heavily populated urban centers.However, because state rules must adhere to the Equal Protection Clause, and presidential elections do not, it creates a stark contrast between how votes are counted for different offices. This structural difference has spurred movements like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which seeks to bypass the state-by-state electoral system in favor of a national popular vote.

[John Corbett]

Well, Google AI seems to agree with your answer.

My dream job would have been to be Chief Justice of the United States. It probably would have helped if I had gone to law school first.