Debate about the fairness of the Electoral College (EC) predictably flared in late 2016 as Donald Trump was elected President of the United States despite losing the national popular vote by 2.1%, or almost 3 million votes. Critics—mostly liberals and Democrats—labeled the EC as a racist and sexist institution that disenfranchises urban and minority voters, while defenders—mostly conservatives and Republicans—countered that the EC protects against corruption, extremism, and tyranny. (One EC defender argued that the EC prevents California from imposing “something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation.”)
This debate about the EC catches rural scholars on the horns of a dilemma. On one hand, rural scholars are often at the forefront of defending rural voices in the face of what some rural scholars have dubbed urbanormativity: “the cultural assumption of the dominance and superiority of urban communities and patterns of life” (Thomas et. al 2011). On the other hand, rural scholars are committed to addressing structural injustices and supporting democratic ideals. (One shared value of the Rural Sociological Society is “to assist vulnerable and marginalized peoples wherever they may be.”) What is a responsibility of rural scholars in a world in which rural voices face marginalization but where electoral institutions are arguably becoming increasingly biased toward whiter, more rural places?
This paper explores this question, including whether the 2016 election reveals a rural bias in the EC. Findings suggest that while small-state bias did not disproportionate harm Hillary Clinton (she won five of the ten states most advantaged in their vote share by the EC), state-level measures of rurality were highly correlated with support of President Trump. I explore what this means for rural scholarship, cautioning against overreactions to the 2016 results while reckoning with the real issues of rural bias in our electoral institutions. I suggest that rural scholars ought to be principally concerned with justice broadly conceived, even when it appears to betray rural place and space. Finally, I return to the Electoral College by exploring existing proposals for its reform or abolishment before suggesting a compromise that reforms the Electoral College without eliminating it.
