In the 1997 comedy My Best Friend’s Wedding, Julia Roberts’ character, Jules, gracefully accepts defeat when the groom chooses another woman, embracing her role as a bridesmaid. Fast forward to 2024: This scene must surely resonate with voters in solidly blue or red states who are sidelined when presidential candidates focus on swing states—the real blushing “brides” in the race for electoral dominance.
But unlike romantic comedies, there’s no happy ending for the jilted voters in these states. If we want a truly representative democracy, we need a system that values every vote and makes every voice consequential.
The recent vote in seven Illinois counties to secede from Chicago and Cook County underscores growing political disenfranchisement in areas where metropolitan interests are perceived to overshadow rural priorities.
This mirrors the concerns that led the framers of the Constitution to create the Electoral College as a compromise between direct elections and congressional selection. They aimed to balance the interests of large and small states while safeguarding against an uninformed electorate. However, critics often argue that the Electoral College undermines the democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” Its origins are further complicated by elements such as the racist 3/5 compromise, which counted enslaved people as only three-fifths of a person, highlighting the deep inequalities embedded in the system—inequalities that were later subject to change.
Our current “winner-takes-all” system gives the candidate who narrowly wins a state all its electoral votes, which forces campaigns to focus solely on swing states. This approach disregards millions of votes cast for the losing candidate in each state, effectively silencing significant portions of the electorate. Reform, such as a split electoral vote system as now exists in Nebraska and Maine that allocates votes proportionally, would more accurately reflect the will of the people and restore fairness.
Historically, American institutions have thrived on adaptability. The U.S. Constitution itself was designed with mechanisms for amendments, anticipating the need for change. Major shifts like the expansion of voting rights reflect our capacity to reassess societal structures. Constitutional amendments like the 15th and 19th, which expanded voting rights, exemplify American adaptability in response to injustices. The same adaptive spirit should guide us now as we consider electoral reform. Change is possible again.
Split votes in Nebraska and Maine encourage candidates to campaign in districts that might otherwise be overlooked. In the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic victory in Nebraska’s 2nd district highlights the effectiveness of this approach.
Electoral reform is contentious, with fears from both parties about potential disadvantages. In Republican strongholds like Texas, voters worry that a split vote system could dilute rural, conservative influence, as cities like Houston and Austin lean Democratic. Conversely, Democratic voters in states like California and New York fear their influence could be reduced by voters in more conservative rural and suburban districts.
Yet a split vote system offers both parties a chance to broaden their appeal. This year, Republicans made gains with Hispanic voters, particularly in Texas and Florida, where conservative messages resonated with growing Latino populations. Additionally, suburban support for Republicans has risen in areas where concerns about school policies and public safety have taken center stage.
Democrats, on the other hand, found increased support in suburban areas of Georgia and Pennsylvania, where voters prioritized reproductive rights. A split vote system would reduce Democrats’ reliance on urban strongholds, appealing to a wider spectrum of voters.
In Oregon, the “Greater Idaho” movement”, which advocates regional secession from liberal-leaning areas, highlights the concerns of voters who feel underrepresented in the current system. A split vote approach in Oregon could ensure more balanced representation across all regions.
The economic impact also deserves consideration. The 2024 presidential election is projected to have cost over $15 billion, with a billion spent in Pennsylvania alone. This influx of money leads to higher bookings for hotels, restaurants, and local transportation services, and generates significant ad revenue—benefits that non-swing states often miss out on. Furthermore, swing states gain direct access to candidates and their attention, an advantage that should be afforded to all citizens.
After two chasmic presidential elections, it’s clear that reform is necessary. Just as Julia Roberts’ character in My Best Friend’s Wedding accepts her role as the overlooked bridesmaid, voters in reliably blue or red states have been sidelined, their voices muted. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, but adopting a system that values every vote will allow all voters to take their rightful place in the electoral process and ensure a more representative and resilient democracy.