TThe last two presidential elections have raised serious questions about the strength of American democracy, and unfortunately, Tuesday’s elections may exacerbate these concerns. At the center of this issue is the Electoral College, which allows Americans to indirectly elect their president through state-appointed electors. Although the electoral college has stirred controversy for more than two hundred years, Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 – despite losing the popular vote by 3 million people – has reinforced the sense that the system is undermining democratic principles. It would be heartbreaking if the unhinged, vengeful, and power-hungry Trump were to win because of the anti-democratic result of the Electoral College.

Yet that could happen. After the Civil War, four presidents – all Republicans – lost the popular vote but still won the White House through the Electoral College. Trump’s 2024 campaign seemed intent on repeating the feat or creating enough chaos to push the election to the House of Representatives, where Republican delegations are likely to prevail. His strategy is based on divisive rhetoric, characterized by inflammatory and often discriminatory themes. Instead of bridging the rifts, he wants to deepen them — seeking an Electoral College victory by rallying his most fervent supporters.

With numerous legal challenges expected, final election results could be delayed for days. In 2020, despite losing the popular vote by 7 million people, Trump refused to concede and tried to undermine the certification process. The complex mechanisms of the electoral college provide room for exploitation, a vulnerability that Trump seems willing to exploit, even if it means inciting violence. Now he is laying the groundwork for future claims of fraud with a barrage of lies, preparing to cry if he loses again.

Under the Electoral College, candidates must secure 270 voters, a majority of the 538 at stake, to win. Proponents argue that by allocating a certain number of electoral votes to each state and implementing the winner-take-all system in all but two states, the Electoral College forces candidates to engage with diverse regions across the country . In theory this leads to national attention, but in practice this often falls short. Kamala Harris and Mr. Trump have focused their efforts on the large, competitive states. Ms. Harris has focused her efforts on the “blue wall” of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania – which current polls suggest would be enough to put her in the White House. Trump only needs Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina. In Pennsylvania alone, the Harris and Trump campaigns have spent a combined $576 million on political ads.

In his book Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America, historian George C. Edwards III points out that Gallup polls over the past fifty years show that most ‘Americans have consistently expressed support for the idea of ​​an official amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow for direct election of the President.” It’s not fantasy. In 1969, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment with a strong bipartisan vote, supported by Richard Nixon. Three-quarters of states expressed support. But it was killed in the Senate by a filibuster led by Southern senators who feared a popular vote would empower African Americans. The most prominent effort today to get rid of the Electoral College is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Tim Walz, Ms. Harris’s running mate, supports abolishing the current system. Is it possible to abolish the electoral college? It should not take the nightmare of a second Trump presidency to reform this anti-democratic relic of the 18th century.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? To submit an email response of up to 300 words to be considered for publication in our letters section, click here.