The Electoral College Tantrum That Got Me Sent Home From School

help support our 250 Years series with underwriting

When the 200-year U.S. bicentennial rolled around, I was an elementary school student. My teacher, Mr. Netz, explained the electoral college. Within minutes, I was arguing with him. Then I was arguing with the class. Then I was arguing with anyone who would listen.

According to Mr. Netz, I had become unruly, enraged, and inconsolable. That was probably a fair assessment.

I had just learned that Americans do not directly elect the President of the United States. Instead, we vote for electors who then cast the official votes. To my young mind, this seemed like an unnecessary and potentially dangerous layer between citizens and the highest office in the nation.

I argued. And argued. And argued some more. Eventually I was sent to the nurse’s office.

When the nurse became tired of hearing my increasingly detailed concerns about the electoral college, I was sent home. Fortunately, home was directly across the street.

My mother met me at the door with her hand firmly planted on her hip. After explaining what had happened, I launched into a detailed analysis of all the ways I believed the electoral college could fail.

My mother was unimpressed. She informed me that I had embarrassed myself and disappointed her.

Several hours later my father came home. My father was a professor of education at Gustavus Adolphus College. He listened to the entire story. When I finally finished, he smiled and said something I have never forgotten:

“Perhaps the ranting went on a little too long, but your logic is sound.”

What exactly was I worried about? As best as I can remember, my elementary-school objections included:

• A candidate could win the popular vote but lose the presidency.
• Voters in some states could have more influence than voters in others.
• Campaigns might focus only on a handful of competitive states while ignoring everyone else.
• The system could produce questions about legitimacy if the popular vote and electoral vote diverged.
• Extremely close elections could trigger legal battles and political conflict.
• Citizens might feel their votes mattered less depending on where they lived.
• Political polarization could increase if people believed the system was not reflecting majority preferences.
• Public trust in elections could be damaged if outcomes repeatedly differed from popular expectations.

At the time, these seemed like theoretical concerns. Over the decades that followed, many of them became real national debates.

The electoral college has produced presidents who did not win the national popular vote. Elections have been decided by razor-thin margins. Court battles have reached the highest levels of government. Entire campaign strategies have revolved around a small number of battleground states. Questions about legitimacy and representation have become recurring features of our political discourse.

None of this means the electoral college should necessarily be abolished. Reasonable people disagree about that. But it does mean my concerns were not imaginary.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, I find myself thinking less about whether that young girl was correct and more about why she reacted so strongly.

I think it was because I loved the idea of democracy. I still do.

The remarkable thing about the United States is not that our institutions are perfect. It is that generation after generation we continue debating how to make them better. Democracy has always been an unfinished project.

It was unfinished in 1776. It was unfinished in 1976. It remains unfinished in 2026.

That is not a weakness of the American experiment. It is its defining characteristic.

My father was right. The rant probably went on too long. But years later, I remain grateful that he cared more about the quality of the argument than the volume of the delivery.

As our nation celebrates 250 years, perhaps that is one of the most American traditions of all: asking difficult questions, challenging assumptions, and believing that even our most cherished institutions are strong enough to withstand extreme pressure and scrutiny.