The Brief

Every presidential election cycle, constitutional law expert Alison LaCroix can count on people asking her one question when they learn what she does for a living.

“Why do we have the Electoral College?” she says she's asked — again and again. “It's good news in terms of people being aware that it exists,” says LaCroix, who teaches law and history at the University of Chicago, “but bad news in the sense that people feel like, ‘Why does it exist, and is it useful?’”

A majority of Americans — more than 60% — support abolishing the Electoral College, according to a September report by the Pew Research Center. But the system has survived an unprecedented number of attempts to change it.

“There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject,” according to the National Archives, citing more than 700 efforts to dismantle the process.

Backers of the Electoral College idea say the system balances power among large and small states, brings stability, and is an obstacle to demagogues. But critics call the Electoral College an indirect process that’s undemocratic and rooted in racism. It’s also the reason we have swing states.

“From the perspective of 2024, you know, it doesn't seem ‘small-d’ democratic to have this sort of intermediate body between the people voting and the ultimate decision,” says LaCroix, who has written a historical analysis of the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s a quick guide:

How does the Electoral College work?

Dec. 16, 1940: New York State electors, part of the Electoral College, cast votes at the state capital in Albany. "All are unidentified," according to The Associated Press.

(

AP

)

“When voters cast their ballots for a candidate for president of the United States, they are actually voting for the presidential electors who were selected by that candidate’s party,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

On ballots around the country, names like “Donald Trump” and “Kamala Harris” actually represent slates of electors — members of the Electoral College who are pledged to vote for that candidate.

There are 538 members of the Electoral College nationwide: one for each state’s members of Congress, and three more for the District of Columbia. That’s where the presidential election’s famous number comes from: The candidate with at least 270 electoral votes (a majority) wins. As we’ve seen in some previous elections, that candidate doesn’t have to win the popular vote.

Despite its substantial-sounding name, the Electoral College is neither a place nor a permanent body: It’s more of a process. In each state, political parties designate their own slate of potential electors before the November general election.

Nearly every state and the District of Columbia have a winner-take-all policy, meaning only those electors tied to a candidate who won the popular vote in their state will send their ballots to the Capitol. Maine and Nebraska divide the ballots, giving two “at-large” electoral votes to the state’s overall winner but also one for each congressional district won.

The electors then gather in mid-December to cast their votes for president and vice president, sending the results to Congress.

Congress then certifies the votes, on Jan. 6. If there’s a tie, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election to choose the president.

A presidential candidate can win the Electoral College vote but lose the popular vote: it happened in 2016 and 2000, and several times in the 1800s.

Who are the electors?

In most states, the two main parties choose slates of potential electors either at their conventions or by committee votes. They’re often people who play prominent roles in state government or are longstanding party members.

Each state’s legislature determines how electors are chosen — but there are two main restrictions: They can’t be federal government workers; and they can’t be members of Congress.

Federal law doesn’t require electors to vote in a way that reflects that results in their state, but 37 states have laws requiring them to do so, according to the NCSL. The organization says the 2016 election saw seven “faithless” electors — including five Democratic electors who refused to cast their votes for Hillary Clinton — the most since 1972.

Despite their power, electors’ identities aren’t usually widely known outside of their state. Unlike members of Congress, there isn’t a centralized list of all the states’ electors, according to the Office of the Federal Register.

The Framers opted against a popular vote

Jan. 6, 2021: Then-President Trump's supporters march at the Michigan State Capitol to protest the certification of Joe Biden as the next U.S. president.

(

Matthew Hatcher

/

Getty Images

)

The country’s framers saw the Electoral College as a way to balance a lot of competing motivations, from the separation of federal powers to states not wanting to cede power, to concerns of unequal power between the states due to population differences (and for some, not wanting to risk losing slavery). LaCroix says even at the time, in the 1780s when this decision was made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the delegates chose “an unusual body.”

The Constitution’s framers were also dubious about a popular vote, concerned on one hand that the country was too large for the public to make an informed choice on a leader — and on the other, that a direct system could help a demagogue rise to power.

They also considered, but dismissed, the idea of having Congress choose the president, similar to Great Britain’s parliamentary system. But at the Convention, Gouverneur Morris — who argued for a popular vote — warned that if the legislature picked the president, “it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal, and of faction.”

But some Convention attendees also believed candidates would likely fail to gain national support outside their region, leaving Congress to decide the presidency.

“And then they say, well, what about an intermediate body, which becomes the Electoral College,” LaCroix says. “[It] solves the problem of the president being too beholden to Congress. It's a temporary body. It's not some entity that has ongoing power. And they thought that was appealing.”

A further sign of the Electoral College’s ephemeral nature: The term isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

Why do some call the Electoral College a relic of racism?

Dec. 13, 2000: Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore march to the Florida State Capitol to rally against the legislature's intention to name a slate of electors favorable to Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.

(

Tim Sloan

/

AFP

)

At the Convention, Southern states successfully argued for using enslaved people’s population numbers to bolster their power in Congress, claiming that each slave should be counted as 3/5 of a person — but not have the right to vote — when calculating representation.

A direct popular vote for the presidency would undermine that power. But if the Electoral College were to be based on representation in Congress, the Three Fifths Compromise’s amplification of Southern political power would carry over into choosing the president. The dynamic has been a force in presidential elections ever since.

“That's a problem with the Electoral College today, is it just sort of refracts too much power to small states,” LaCroix says. “And some of it is about smaller states — or states that were, like Georgia and South Carolina, really concerned about protecting slavery” in the new Constitution.

The Civil War and the 13th Amendment ended the Three Fifths era. But for decades afterward, Southern states worked to suppress and dilute Black voters’ impact. Today, the Electoral College’s critics say that its winner-take-all aspect is still harmful.

“You see the impact, for example, in the South right now,” Jesse Wegman, author of the book Let The People Pick The President: The Case For Abolishing The Electoral College, told NPR’s Fresh Air in 2020. Wegman says millions of Black citizens’ votes in Southern states are simply drowned out by white majorities.

“You see these patterns replicating themselves throughout our history,” he said. “The people who stopped the popular vote amendment in the late 1960s were Southern segregationists. Some of the people who prevented us from getting to a popular vote in the founding of the country were slave holders. Again and again the pattern repeats itself.”

The House overwhelmingly voted to abolish the Electoral College in 1969

Nov. 13, 2016: Protestors demonstrate against President-elect Donald Trump outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The Republican lost the popular vote by more than a million votes, but he won the Electoral College vote.

(

Mark Makela

/

Getty Images

)

Going back more than 50 years, a majority of voters have supported doing away with the Electoral College.

“Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981,” according to the National Archives.

Momentum to replace the Electoral College got a boost in 1968, when Richard Nixon notched a razor-thin win of the popular vote — after earlier concerns that segregationist George Wallace’s third-party candidacy might siphon enough electoral votes to prevent a clear majority.

Sen. Birch Bayh led a push to amend the Constitution, and in September of 1969, the House voted 339–70 to adopt the measure. But the amendment languished in the Senate.

“Led by Southern senators but helped by some very conservative Midwestern Republicans, the proposal is defeated by a filibuster,” as Harvard Kennedy School professor Alex Keyssar told NPR’s Throughline ahead of the 2020 election.

Segregationists weren’t the only ones who wanted to preserve the Electoral College. Some Black leaders, such as Vernon Jordan, argued in the 1970s that Black voters could wield political power as “swing” election deciders. But many of those leaders later opted to support a popular vote.

There’s an ongoing debate over whether to replace the Electoral College

The college’s supporters include the conservative Heritage Foundation, which says it prevents presidential candidates from focusing only on winning votes from high-population and urban areas, thus addressing “the Founders’ fears of a ‘tyranny of the majority,” according to its website.

The Heritage Foundation also says the Electoral College tends to magnify the margin of victory, imparting a mandate to govern; and “has the added benefit of eschewing radical candidates for more moderate ones.”

Even experts who want change also warn that some of the impacts could be unpredictable.

For instance, Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale University, told NPR’s Throughline that running a new, national direct election would bring complications — from what central federal authority oversees it to how to get 50 states to agree on the rules.

But, Amar added, “Here's my best argument for why we should have reform: equality. One person, one vote. Each person's vote should count the same…. One person, one vote is a powerful affirmation of equality.”

In the face of high federal hurdles such as a constitutional amendment, there is a push for change at the state level.

Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states adopt legislation requiring them to award their electors’ votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. The mechanism would kick in once enough states join the compact to decide a presidential election.

As of this year, National Popular Vote legislation has become law in 17 states and D.C., reflecting 209 electoral votes. In 2023, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed his state’s version of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This year, Maine also joined the group.

The legislation “has also passed at least one legislative chamber in 7 states possessing 74 electoral votes (Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, Virginia),” according to the National Popular Vote website.

The compact needs to add states holding 61 more electoral votes to trigger the change.

The World Cup is coming to Los Angeles in 2026. Could the Women's World Cup come here too?

On Friday, FIFA released the bid books for the 2031 Women’s World Cup.

The U.S. Soccer Federation submitted a joint bid with Mexico, Costa Rica and Jamaica. It was the only bid that made the deadline.

If approved, several cities across the four countries would host the global football tournament.

Forty venues have in the U.S. have been proposed as potential sites for 2031 games, with some right here in southern California.

Football’s coming back?

Four Los Angeles stadiums are part of the bid.

• Rose Bowl
• Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
• Dignity Health Sports Park in Carson
• SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

Show me the money

The bid projected that the 2031 tournament would bring in $4 billion in total revenue — four times more than $1 billion projected to be made from the upcoming 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil.

Organizers expect to generate revenue from across six main sources including: ticket revenues, hospitality, concessions, fan festivals, broadcast, and marketing opportunities.

Ticket prices are projected to start at $35 for the opening rounds seats, and between $120 and $600 for later matches

Wait and see

FIFA is expected to formally confirm the bid at their next congress on April 30th in Vancouver.

The evaluation process will focus on, according to FIFA, “the event vision and key metrics, infrastructure, services, commercial considerations, and sustainability and human rights.”

The venues where games will be held won't be decided for at least a few more years.

California ag giant the Wonderful Company suffered a setback on Tuesday in its bid to overturn a new farmworker unionization law when an appeals court tossed its lawsuit against state labor regulators.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno leaves in place a controversial new law backed by the United Farm Workers that was meant to boost organizing in a heavily immigrant workforce. The law allows farmworkers to signal their support for union representation using a signed card, bypassing the traditional in-person, secret-ballot election usually held on the employer’s property.

The Wonderful Company — owner of the Wonderful Pistachios brand and Fiji Water, Pom pomegranate juices and Halos oranges —filed suit against the state’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board last year trying to overturn the law, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in 2023.

The suit, alleging the law is unconstitutional, came after the United Farm Workers filed a petition with enough signatures to represent 600-odd workers at the company’s grape nursery in Wasco.

In a contentious public dispute, the company accused union organizers of tricking workers into signing cards supporting unionization and provided over 100 employees’ signatures attesting to being deceived; in turn, the union accused the company of illegally intimidating workers into withdrawing their support. Regulators at the agricultural labor board filed charges against Wonderful after investigating the claims.

All of those allegations were being heard before the labor board last spring when Wonderful took the matter to court, arguing the new law deprived the company of due process. A Kern County judge initially halted the board proceedings, but the appeals court allowed them to continue last fall. After weeks of hearings this year, the labor board has yet to issue a decision on whether UFW can represent Wonderful employees.

In the meantime, the company has shuttered the Wasco nursery and donated it to UC Davis, making the question of an actual union at the worksite moot.

In the new ruling, the appeals court judges issued a sharp rebuke of the company for suing over the unionization instead of waiting for the labor board decision.

“Wonderful filed this petition notwithstanding approximately 50 years of unbroken precedent finding an employer may not directly challenge a union certification decision in court except in extraordinarily and exceedingly rare circumstances, which Wonderful does not meaningfully attempt to show are present here,” wrote Justice Rosendo Peña.

Elizabeth Strater, a United Farm Workers vice president, said the decision affirms that “every farm worker in California has rights under the law, and those rights need to be protected.”

But Wonderful Company General Counsel Craig Cooper dismissed the ruling as only a matter of timing: “the decision explicitly does not address the merits of Wonderful Nurseries’ constitutional challenge.”

After an Afghan national was named as being behind a shooting in Washington, D.C., that left one member of the National Guard dead and another in critical condition, the Trump administration says it is halting all asylum decisions.

Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), said Friday night that the agency is pausing decisions "until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible."

"The safety of the American people always comes first," Edlow wrote on X.

The decision follows President Trump's promise of a sharp crackdown on immigration from countries he described as "third world."

Writing on social media on Thursday night, Trump railed against immigrants from impoverished nations, accusing them of being a burden on the nation's welfare system and "preying" on natural-born citizens.

"I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover," he wrote on Truth Social.

"Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation."

The Trump administration is already deporting some immigrants, either to their countries of origin or to third countries, many of which are paid to receive them. Venezuelans were deported from the U.S. to El Salvador, a number of migrants were sent to Eswatini and South Sudan, and Rwanda has agreed to accept deportees.

Edlow wrote on social media Thursday that he had been directed to conduct "a full scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern."

He did not say which countries this would entail, and the USCIS did not respond to an NPR request for comment. But a June White House proclamation placed a travel ban on 12 countries of concern.

A makeshift memorial of flowers and American flags stands outside the Farragut West Metro station on Nov. 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(

Andrew Leyden

/

Getty Images

)

These included many African nations suffering from conflict and terrorism such as Chad, Sudan and Somalia — as well as other countries, such as Afghanistan. Another 7 countries were slapped with partial restrictions.

In a statement to CNN, the Department of Homeland Security said it had already halted all immigration requests stemming from Afghanistan and was in the process of reviewing "all" asylum cases approved under former President Biden.

The department did not respond to an NPR request for comment.

History of anti-immigrant sentiment

The president's latest comments against immigration was sparked by the revelation that the alleged shooter was identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal — a 29-year-old Afghan national who had worked with the CIA to fight the Taliban in his native country and was admitted into the United States in 2021 as a result of his service. In a Thanksgiving Day call with servicemembers, Trump described the shooting as a terrorist attack and the shooter as a "savage monster."

He blamed the Biden administration for Lakanwal's entry to the United States and for a general failure of the immigration system.

"For the most part, we don't want 'em," he said, referring broadly to immigration seekers as gang members, mentally ill and previously incarcerated.

Trump ran both successful White House campaigns on a pledge to crack down on illegal immigration, targeting at various points migrants from countries including Mexico and Somalia.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday after the Thanksgiving call, Trump widened his attack to focus not just on the alleged shooter but to rail against immigration to the U.S. and immigrants in general.

When asked by a reporter about the fact that as a former CIA asset, Lakanwal had been vetted, Trump repeatedly berated the reporter as "stupid."

People detained earlier in the day are taken to a parking lot on the far north side of the city before being transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Oct. 31, 2025, in Chicago, Ill.

(

Jamie Kelter Davis

/

Getty Images

)

Asked by another reporter whether he blamed all Afghans for the alleged actions of one, Trump said: "No, but there's a lot of problems with Afghans."

Trump then turned his attention to immigrants from Somalia, who he has repeatedly accused of being gang-affiliated and "taking over" Minnesota — home to the nation's largest Somali community.

Questioned about what Somalis had to do with the D.C. shooting, Trump said: "Nothing." But, he added, "Somalians have caused a lot of trouble." .

Later on social media, he described "Somalian gangs" in Minnesota as "roving the streets looking for 'prey' as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses hoping against hope that they will be left alone."

Officials for the United Nations on Friday criticized Trump's call for sweeping halts to immigration seekers.

"They are entitled to protection under international law, and that should be given due process," U.N. human rights office spokesperson Jeremy Laurence told reporters in Geneva.

Copyright 2025 NPR

Alex and Elvia Huerta of Evil Cooks have released the El Sereno Food Passport, a $10 booklet to promote local restaurants.

The first edition of the booklet features 18 local restaurants, each offering its own little perk when you visit and get your passport stamped. Customers can either get free snacks or drinks or get a discount.

At Tirzah’s Mexi-Terranean, you can either get 15% off your order or a free esquite when you show your passport.

Evil Cooks is so metal, they make black octopus tacos. They have also experimented with gansito tamales. This Halloween, they collaborated with Amiga Amore, a Mexitalian eatery, to create a special “witches menu” that included huitlacoche, aguachile negro and lamb shank in fig mole.

Get the passport

Pick up a passport:

• Evil Cooks, 3333 N. Eastern Ave., Los Angeles
• Lil East Coffee, 2734 N. Eastern Ave., Los Angeles