Sacramento — Inside the private home of California Governor Gavin Newsom, the air was thick with both camaraderie and urgency. The conversations echoed off the walls, a blend of policy discussions, political hopes, and the undeniable hum of change. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz took to the microphone with the conviction of a man who has spent years in public service, his eyes scanning the room, catching the gaze of like-minded advocates. “I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go,” he stated, his voice steady but with an edge of intensity that couldn’t be missed. “We need a national popular vote, but that’s not the world we live in—yet.”
As he spoke, you could almost feel the collective sigh of agreement from the crowd—an unspoken acknowledgment that this wasn’t just political theory. This was about people, about the fabric of democracy, about ensuring that every vote, from the smallest towns to the largest cities, carried the same weight.
But what Walz was asking for—abolishing the Electoral College—was no small task. It was, in fact, a call for a seismic shift in how America elects its presidents. The room seemed to understand the gravity of the request, and yet there was also hope in the air, a belief that maybe, just maybe, this could be the beginning of something transformational.
The Case for Electoral Reform: Why Tim Walz Advocates for Change
When Governor Tim Walz signed Minnesota into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in 2023, it wasn’t just a symbolic gesture. For him, it was a deeply personal stand against what he views as an outdated system—one that no longer represents the democratic ideals of equality and fairness.
Walz’s position on the Electoral College goes beyond mere politics. It taps into a growing national conversation about whether the system still serves the modern electorate. The Electoral College, established by the Founding Fathers, was initially designed to balance power between large and small states, ensuring that densely populated regions wouldn’t dominate presidential elections. But to Walz and many others, what once may have worked in an 18th-century agrarian society feels increasingly out of step with the 21st-century reality.
“It’s about fairness,” Walz remarked, and you could feel the emotional weight behind the words. In a system where candidates can lose the popular vote but still win the presidency—as was the case in 2000 and again in 2016—Walz sees the potential for a dangerous erosion of public trust. He isn’t alone. The compact he signed on to will only take effect if states with a cumulative 270 electoral votes agree to allocate their votes to the national popular vote winner. So far, it’s an uphill battle, but the wheels are in motion.
Electoral College: System Under Scrutiny
To truly grasp why people like Walz are advocating for the elimination of the Electoral College, it’s important to first understand how it works. In 48 states and Washington D.C., the system is straightforward—whoever wins the most votes in a state takes all of its electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska use a proportional system, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Critics argue that this system warps the democratic process. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes but lost the presidency to Donald Trump, who secured more electoral votes. The same occurred in 2000 when George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore. For many voters, these outcomes felt unfair—an indication that the system doesn’t always reflect the will of the people.
It’s easy to see why this system might feel antiquated in today’s world. The winner-takes-all approach means that candidates focus almost exclusively on a handful of swing states while ignoring large parts of the country. A farmer in Iowa may feel as though their vote holds outsized importance, while someone in California—solidly blue—may feel as though their voice is lost in a sea of predictability.
And yet, the system remains, largely because abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment—a steep hill to climb in a polarized political climate.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: Solution Without an Amendment?
Walz isn’t pushing for a constitutional amendment—at least not yet. What he is advocating for is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a workaround that could fundamentally change how electoral votes are allocated without needing to rewrite the Constitution.
The compact is a simple idea with massive implications. States agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of how their own citizens voted. The beauty of this plan is that it would only take effect once enough states have joined to hit the 270-vote threshold—essentially guaranteeing that the winner of the popular vote would also win the presidency.
For Walz, this is the best of both worlds—a way to ensure that every vote counts equally without the messy, drawn-out process of amending the Constitution. As of now, 15 states and Washington D.C., representing 195 electoral votes, have signed on. There’s still a long road ahead, but momentum is building, especially among Democratic governors like Walz who feel that the system as it stands is inherently flawed.
Battle for the Future of Democracy
But not everyone agrees. Republicans, in particular, have been staunch defenders of the Electoral College, arguing that eliminating it would give undue influence to larger states with massive populations like California and New York. They contend that rural states would be ignored, their voices drowned out by urban centers.
“It’s a disaster for democracy,” former President Donald Trump once remarked, criticizing the Electoral College in 2012, only to reverse course after it delivered him a victory in 2016. Many conservatives argue that without the Electoral College, candidates would only campaign in a few high-density areas, leaving much of the country feeling invisible and unheard.
It’s a complex issue, with valid arguments on both sides. But for Walz and others who support the compact, the heart of the matter comes down to one essential belief: every vote should count equally. Whether you live in a small town in Minnesota or a sprawling city in California, your voice should have the same weight in deciding who leads the country.
The Road Ahead: Can the National Popular Vote Succeed?
As the 2024 election looms, the conversation about the Electoral College feels more urgent than ever. Governors like Tim Walz are betting on the belief that America is ready for a change, that voters want a system that reflects the popular will. But even as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gains ground, there are significant challenges ahead—legal battles, political opposition, and the ever-present inertia that comes with trying to change something as foundational as how a country chooses its leaders.
Still, if Walz’s speech in Sacramento was any indication, the fight for electoral reform is far from over. “We need a national popular vote,” he told the room, his voice steady, his conviction unshaken. For Walz, and for many others, the path forward is clear: a democracy where every vote—no matter where it’s cast—truly counts.
