NEW YORK, October 19, 2026 – When a voter steps into a curtained booth in suburban Philadelphia or rural Ohio, they aren’t just picking a president. They’re engaging with a 237-year-old electoral mechanism that leaves millions feeling as though their ballots barely matter.
Public frustration isn’t exactly a secret. Pew Research Center’s 2024 survey of 9,720 U.S. adults found that 63% would prefer the candidate who wins the most votes nationally to become president; only 35% favored keeping the Electoral College. That is a clear popular mandate for change—on paper.
Then theory slams headfirst into administrative reality.
The case for change
The flaws in the Electoral College cannot be overlooked. This was seen in the elections of 2000 and 2016, where presidents won even though they lost the national popular vote. According to the current setup, 48 states and District of Columbia give all their electoral votes to the winner in their states. It’s evident that campaigns take place in a few battlegrounds, leaving other states in the dark.
However, there’s a wide support for reforming the Electoral College. According to a poll by Pew, 80 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners wish that the country had a popular vote to choose its president. On the other hand, Republicans are split between supporting (53%) and opposing the Electoral College (46%).
So why hasn’t it happened? Because changing the presidency is not like passing a popular new law.
The constitutional wall
Abolishing the Electoral College will probably necessitate a constitutional amendment, requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress, along with ratification by 38 states. Small states that profit from their disproportionate weight in electing presidents have no incentive to agree to such a change.
There’s another option—known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact—that has drawbacks. According to Pew, while the process of presidential nomination does not legally necessitate a constitutional amendment, the compact could potentially effect the desired reform without it. Nevertheless, it would come into force only upon sufficient participation, and be vulnerable to legal and political pressures.
Even before discussing what a “popular national vote” is, in a country where each of the 50 states has its own electoral system, voter registration requirements, access to the ballot box and voting procedure.
Ranked choice is not a shortcut
Some reformers look to ranked-choice voting as the more achievable path. Voters rank candidates; if nobody wins a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and ballots transfer to voters’ next choices. The idea is to reduce strategic voting, limit spoiler dynamics, and avoid separate runoff elections.
Sounds simple. It isn’t.
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, RCV will require changes in ballots, software, training for poll workers, education for voters, and funding. From administrators who have used it before, RCV usually takes two election cycles until the system becomes normal.
The Minneapolis example provides hope for improvement: they have shortened the time of tabulation from two weeks to one day within several election cycles. The improvement came after significant investment in voter education and voting systems. It is difficult for poor rural counties to bear such initial costs. Alaska allocated about $3.5 million before its 2022 RCV implementation, while Maine allocated $440,000 in 2018. Multnomah County in Oregon allocated $353,910 as one-time transition costs in 2024.
There is one more complication: the ballot can be “exhausted” when all the candidates a voter ranked are exhausted. This means that the ballot has been exhausted not because of ranking too few candidates but simply because the ballot is no longer participating in determining the winner. This difference could be vital in a national close race.
What readiness should mean?
America is ready for a serious conversation. It is not ready for a rushed overhaul.
Instead of making big steps right away, the first steps should be small, for example, proper financing of election offices, introducing reforms in less significant elections, publication of clear instructions on how to tabulate votes, and providing enough time – not just months, but years – for preparation.
The root cause of the problem is mistrust. If a new voting procedure is introduced in a situation when the public does not trust the process, this will probably create even more damage than the previous system. Ranked choice is often seen by the reformers as a solution to everything. However, the opinion of the election officers, who have to implement the new procedure, should receive more attention.
The honest answer
Yes, most Americans want presidents elected by the person who receives the most votes. No, the country is not yet prepared to make that change cleanly, quickly, or nationally.
The Electoral College system is obsolete, and its biases are hard to justify. However, legitimacy is not only about the justness of the rules but also about the voters’ perception of the process and its integrity. Until reformers manage to address this issue, the word “ready” is inappropriate.
