A Pennsylvania state elector casts his vote in the 2020 presidential election in Harrisburg on Dec. 14, 2020.
(
Michael M. Santiago
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
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.
Why do we have it? 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.
How does the Electoral College work? 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. The candidate with at least 270 electoral votes (a majority) wins, and that candidate doesn’t have to win the popular vote.
The backstory: 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).
An ongoing debate to replace it: 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. The would kick in once enough states join the compact to decide a presidential election, and as of this year, National Popular Vote legislation has become law in 17 states and D.C. However, even experts who want this change also warn that some of the impacts could be unpredictable.
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.
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.
Kevin Tidmarsh
is a producer for LAist, covering news and culture. He’s been an audio/web journalist for about a decade.
Published January 1, 2026 6:21 PM
Conditions along the Santa Ana River can become dangerous during heavy rains.
(
Courtesy Orange County Public Works
)
Topline:
An unidentified body was recovered from the bed of the Santa Ana River just before noon on Jan. 1, according to the Orange County Fire Authority.
What we know: Officials said a witness called 911 to report a person in the riverbed near the intersection of Warner Avenue and Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana. The person traveled about two miles downstream before the search and rescue crew recovered their body in the city of Fountain Valley.
The response: About 60 firefighters from OCFA and the Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa fire departments contributed to the water rescue effort.
The danger of moving water: With more rain in the forecast this weekend, keep in mind that just six inches of fast-moving water can knock down most people, while 12 inches can carry away most cars.
How to stay safe: Emergency officials recommend limiting travel as much as possible during heavy rain and floods, including by car. If you see flooding in your path, remember the slogan, “Turn around, don’t drown.” LAist also has a guide on driving safely in the rain.
Manny Ruiz strikes alongside other workers with Teamsters 2785 at Amazon Warehouse DCK6 in the Bayview District in San Francisco on Dec. 19, 2024. Amazon workers at multiple facilities across the U.S. went on strike to fight for a union contract.
(
Jungho Kim for CalMatters
)
Topline:
Under a law taking effect Jan. 1, California seeks to uphold the labor and unionization rights of private-sector employees, as the federal agency that has held that power for decades is in limbo.
Where things stand: The new law’s future is unclear because the Trump administration is challenging it.
Why now: The law, which grants more powers to the California Public Employment Relations Board, is a response to the National Labor Relations Board lacking a quorum. President Donald Trump fired the NLRB’s chairperson, Gwynne Wilcox, days after he began his second term in January. His two nominees to the board have yet to be confirmed, so the federal board has been without the three members it needs for a quorum for months.
California under a law taking effect today seeks to uphold the labor and unionization rights of private-sector employees, as the federal agency that has held that power for decades is in limbo.
But the new law’s future is unclear because the Trump administration is challenging it.
The law, which grants more powers to the California Public Employment Relations Board, is a response to the National Labor Relations Board lacking a quorum.
President Donald Trump fired the NLRB’s chairperson, Gwynne Wilcox, days after he began his second term in January. His two nominees to the board have yet to be confirmed, so the federal board has been without the three members it needs for a quorum for months.
Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, the Inglewood Democrat who wrote the bill, said when the governor signed it in September that “California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize due to employer intransigence or federal inaction.”
The NLRB sued California over the law in October, saying in its lawsuit that the state is trying to assert authority over “areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”
On the legal challenge to the law, Terry Schanz, McKinnor’s chief of staff, referred CalMatters to the state attorney general. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office is responsible for defending the law in court. A spokesperson for Bonta said the office would have nothing to say about it.
With the NLRB unable to fulfill its duties, states are trying to fill the gap in enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, which Congress passed in 1935. But labor experts contacted by CalMatters do not have high hopes for the California law, which is similar to a law passed in New York this year. They said courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled that states cannot decide matters pertaining to federal labor law because of preemption, the doctrine that a higher authority of law overrides a lower authority.
“It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where the courts do not overturn these (state) laws,” said John Logan, professor and chairperson of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University.
William Gould, a former chairperson of the National Labor Relations Board during the Clinton administration and a professor emeritus at Stanford University, agreed: “In the courts the matter is a dead letter unless (the Supreme Court) shifts gears.”
That’s what the California and U.S. chambers of commerce, along with other business groups, are hoping, according to their amicus brief in support of the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California: “Under California’s view, every state could have its own labor law for private-sector workers. Dozens of laws would overlap and collide.”
The California Labor Federation, an umbrella organization for unions that represents about 2 million California workers, said in an amicus brief that even before Trump fired the NLRB chief, the federal agency’s backlog had been a problem, leading to companies being able to delay bargaining in good faith with their employees’ unions without consequences.
If the California law is overturned, employees who have formed unions but have not succeeded in securing contracts with employers such as Amazon and Starbucks — which are among the companies seeking to have the NLRB declared unconstitutional — may continue to face delays, according to Logan. Or, he said, it’s not clear what would happen if other workers tried to organize and their companies simply fired them.
“The NLRB defunctness is a scandal which cries out for political reform,” Gould said.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Why now: As the clock struck midnight across time zones, people gathered to celebrate the new year.
Keep reading... for those photos.
As the clock strikes midnight across time zones, people gather to celebrate the new year.
We take a look at the shared joy and traditions in these photos.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Reveler use their smartphones to film the falling balloons and confetti as they celebrate the start of 2026 during the New Year countdown event held at a shopping mall in Beijing, early Thursday, Jan. 1, 2026.
(
Andy Wong
/
AP
)
Revellers watch a fireworks and light show for children on Museumplein as part of New Year's Eve celebrations in Amsterdam on December 31, 2025.
(
Remko de Waal
/
Getty Images
)
Members of the public gather to celebrate the New Year during the annual bell-tolling ceremony at the Bosingak Pavilion on January 01, 2026 in Seoul, South Korea.
(
Chung Sung-Jun
/
Getty Images
)
Fireworks explode over skyscrapers during New Year celebrations on January 01, 2026 in Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines.
(
Ezra Acayan
/
Getty Images
)
People buy batons that read happy New Year 2026 on December 31, 2025 in Bangkok, Thailand. Thousands lined the Chao Phraya river in Bangkok as the country welcomed the new year.
(
Lauren DeCicca
/
Getty Images
)
Fireworks explode from the Taipei 101 building during the New Year's celebrations in Taipei, Taiwan, Thursday, Jan. 1, 2026.
(
Chiang Ying-Ying
/
AP
)
Revellers watch the New Year's Eve fireworks from the The Huc Bridge at Hoan Kiem Lake in Hanoi on Jan. 1, 2026.
(
Nhac Nguyen
/
Getty Images
)
People attend the New Year countdown event to celebrate the start of 2026 in the Central district of Hong Kong, on Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2025.
(
Chan Long Hei
/
AP
)
Fireworks explode around the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, during New Year's Eve celebrations in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Thursday, Jan. 1, 2026.
(
Fatima Shbair
/
AP
)
People pose for pictures near illuminated decorations on New Year's Eve in Mumbai, India, Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2025.
(
Rafiq Maqbool
/
AP
)
Revellers watch fireworks during the New Year celebrations in Karachi on January 1, 2026.
(
Rizwan Tabassum
/
Getty Images
)
Iraqis gather in Baghdad's Al-Zawraa Park during New Year's Eve celebrations on December 31, 2025.
(
Ahmad Al-Rubaye
/
AFP/Getty Images
)
Onlookers stand beside light ornaments on New Year's Eve at Bakrkoy Square in Istanbul on Dec. 31, 2025.
(
Yasin Akgul
/
Getty Images
)
People strike a giant bell to celebrate the New Year at the Zojoji Buddhist temple, minutes after midnight Thursday Jan. 1, 2026, in Tokyo.
(
Eugene Hoshiko
/
AP
)
A couple takes a selfie as the last sunset of 2025 is seen over the Mediterranean Sea in Beirut, Lebanon, Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2025.
(
Hassan Ammar
/
AP
)
People watch and take photos as the Ferris wheel displays "Happy New Year" in 16 different languages at Pacific Park on Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2025 in Santa Monica.
Millions of Americans are facing higher health care premiums in the new year after Congress allowed Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire.
Where things stand: Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of senators worked to strike a compromise that could resurrect the enhanced ACA premium tax credits — potentially blunting the blow of rising monthly payments for Obamacare enrollees.
What's next: Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who is part of that effort, says he thinks the Senate can pass a "retroactive" Affordable Care Act subsidy extension, but "we need President Trump."
Millions of Americans are facing higher health care premiums in the new year after Congress allowed Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire. But earlier this week, a bipartisan group of senators worked to strike a compromise that could resurrect the enhanced ACA premium tax credits — potentially blunting the blow of rising monthly payments for Obamacare enrollees.
"There's a number of Republican and Democratic senators who are seeing what a disaster this will be for families that they represent," Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said on Morning Edition Thursday. "That's the common ground here, and it's a doable thing."
Welch said he joined a bipartisan call Tuesday — first reported by Punchbowl News — in which a handful of senators charted out a possible health care compromise.
"We could extend the credits for a couple of years, we could reform it," Welch said of the call. "You could put an income cap, you could have a copay, you could have penalties on insurers who commit fraud. You actually could introduce some cost saving reductions that have bipartisan support."
But according to Welch, this legislation is only doable with President Trump's blessing.
"It would require that President Trump play a major role in this, because he has such influence over the Republican majority in the House and even in the Senate," Welch said.
Last fall, Republicans and Democrats fought bitterly over the Obamacare subsidy extension, causing a political standoff that led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Meanwhile, Trump has remained relatively hands-off, withholding his support for any health care legislation.
Despite these obstacles, Welch said he believes the jump in prices that people across the country now face will break the logjam in Congress.
"A farmer in Vermont, their premium is going to go from $900 a month to $3,200, a month," Welch said. "So they're going to really face sticker shock. There's going to be a secondary impact, because the hospitals, particularly in rural areas, are going to lose revenue."
But even if the Senate advanced a compromise bill on the ACA, the House would also have to get behind it. And the lower chamber has its own bipartisan effort on an ACA subsidy extension.
Just before the recess began in mid-December, four House Republicans joined Democrats in signing a discharge petition on a three-year extension of the ACA subsidies — forcing a floor vote on the bill when the House returns.
Hours after bucking House Speaker Mike Johnson and joining Democrats, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., told Morning Editionback in December that he thinks this vote will get even more Republican support.
"I don't like the clean extension without any income cap," Fitzpatrick said. "But given the choice between a clean three-year extension and letting them expire, that's not a hard choice for me. And I suspect many of my other colleagues are going to view it the same way."
Fitzpatrick and Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., have held meetings with moderate senators on legislative paths to extend the ACA subsidies, a source familiar with the talks but not authorized to speak publicly tells NPR.
The Senate returns on Jan. 5 and the House comes back to Capitol Hill on Jan. 6.
