US election: how does the electoral college voting system work?

On November 5, millions of Americans will cast their votes for president, with the vast majority deciding between Democrat Kamala Harris or Republican Donald Trump. This historic election, however, is not determined by a singular national poll, but rather a state-by-state contest. Many people outside the US, and some inside, do not understand how this complicated system works.

Here are five things to know about the electoral college system:

1. It’s not one electoral contest, but 50 separate races

The founding fathers opted against a national popular vote where the winning candidate just has to gain a majority of votes to claim victory. They decided instead to establish an electoral college under Article II of the US Constitution.

Under this system, voters in every US state and the District of Columbia decide the outcome of a winner-takes-all contest for their state’s electoral votes. Each state is allocated a set number of electoral votes, in line with the size of its population. For example, Texas, with a population of over 29 million, has 50 electoral votes. North Dakota, on the other hand, has a population of under 800,000 and is apportioned three.

By securing a majority of the vote in a state, a candidate collects its allotted electoral college votes. There are 538 in total, with the winner needing at least 270 to secure the presidency (with their running-mate becoming vice-president).

Maine and Nebraska are the only two exceptions to the winner-takes-all approach. These states also use their congressional districts to allocate some electoral college votes: two go to each state’s overall popular vote winner, while one goes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (two districts in Maine, three in Nebraska).

So, when Americans mark their ballot with their choice for president, this vote is technically not awarded automatically to the candidate. Rather, it goes to the individual state’s electors. These people convene across all 50 states once the election is complete, then formally send their state’s electoral votes to the US Congress. The electors are usually state election officials or prominent party members.

Brown University professor of political science Wendy Schiller explained the choice of an electoral college system more than 200 years ago was rooted in a distrust of citizens to make a reasoned choice: “The origins of the electoral college were not supposed to reflect voter opinion at all – it was to be a gate against making a bad choice. It was an elite bulwark against popular opinion.”

2. It can allow for unpredictable and unruly outcomes

By its very nature, the electoral college can result in two unusual, but not improbable, scenarios. First, a candidate can win the electoral college while losing the popular vote and still become president – as happened most recently in 2000 with George W. Bush and in 2016 with Trump.

Secondly, the system allows for a situation were neither candidate wins a majority of electoral votes. If there is a 269-269 tie, a “contingent election” is held under the 12th Amendment. In this case, members of the new House of Representatives, sworn in on January 3 2025, would choose the next president. They do not vote based on individual preference. Instead, every state delegation gets one vote, with a simple majority of 26 state delegation votes needed to decide who becomes president. This has happened only twice in presidential elections, in 1801 and 1825. The House must continue voting until a president is elected.

3. In 2020, Trump’s supporters sought to challenge the electoral college results

State legislators can object to their state’s general election outcome during the congressional certification. This happened in 2020 when a group of Republicans objected to results in Pennsylvania and Arizona – both won by Democrat Joe Biden. After supporters of Trump stormed the Capitol building in January 2021, protesting the official authorisation of votes, Congress updated the 1800s-era Electoral Count Act to make it harder to challenge the electoral college result.

Following the 2020 election, certain electors in several swing states attempted to falsely declare Trump the winner. These included high-profile Republicans in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona and Wisconsin. Trump’s campaign lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, pleaded guilty in Georgia to his role in subverting the election.

There are fears of a potential repeat of this scenario in 2024, should Trump lose again. Documentation returned to state election officials has revealed that over a dozen of these individuals are returning as potential electors this year.

4. Criticism includes national security concerns and disinformation

Some call the electorial college system undemocratic. Others point to the “faithless elector” issue, whereby the electors within a state cast their vote against the preference of their state’s popular vote.

Small vote margins often secure all the votes in key swing states. For example, in 2016, Trump won Michigan by just 13,080 votes (0.3%), Wisconsin by 27,257 votes (1.0%), and Pennsylvania by 68,236 votes (1.2%). This allocated Trump 46 electoral votes as well as victory in the presidential election.

This has led Brookings Institution fellows Elaine Kamarck and Darrell M. West to conclude that “false news purveyors don’t have to persuade 99% of American voters to be influential, but simply a tiny amount in [certain states] … A shift of 1% of the vote or less based on false narratives would have altered the outcome.”

Harvard University professor of government Ryan Enos told me that foreign adversaries with an interest in the outcome of the US election are “aware of how decentralised the system is, and how chaos can be sowed by putting pressure on particular states”.

5. Some people want to abolish it

The process remains highly contentious and can result in a more fractious political climate. Consequently, there many who want to abolish it. West, a senior fellow of governance studies at Brookings, said the US should get rid of the electoral college. He called it a relic that was established “as an elite-based mechanism to basically choose the president because [America’s founding fathers] did not trust the general public”.

However, Barnard College professor of political science Sheri Berman had a different view, saying that if you believe different states should have some guaranteed level of representation regardless of their population, then designing a system that gives this to them could be viewed as legitimate.

Ultimately, despite its unusual elements, Christine Stenglein, a research analyst at Brookings, believes “the electoral college is part of the US constitution, and therefore not likely to change any time soon”.

Richard Hargy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.