(4) The flawed electoral rules impair fairness and justice

The US presidential election follows the time-honored Electoral College system, where the president and vice president are not elected directly by popular vote, but by the Electoral College consisting of 538?electors. The candidate who?achieves?a majority of 270 or more electoral votes wins the election.

The flaws of such an electoral system are self-evident. First, as the president-elect may not?be the?winner of?the national popular vote, there is a lack of broader?representation. Second, as each state gets to decide its own electoral rules, this may create confusion and disorder. Third, the winner-takes-all system exacerbates?inequality among states and between?political parties. It?leads to a huge waste of votes and discourages voter turnout. Voters in "deep blue"?and "deep red"?states are often?neglected, while swing states become?disproportionately more?important where both parties seek to woo more supporters.

There have been five presidential elections?in US history in which the winners of nationwide?popular vote were not elected the president. The most recent case was the 2016?presidential election in which?Republican candidate Donald Trump won 62.98 million?popular votes or 45.9% of?the total, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won?65.85 million or 48% of popular votes. Although Trump lost the popular vote, he won 304 electoral votes while Clinton secured?only 227, which gave Trump?his presidency.

Another flaw of the electoral system widely acknowledged by the US public is gerrymandering. In 1812, Governor?of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry signed a bill in the interest of his own party, creating in his?state an?odd-shaped electoral district?that was compared to a?salamander. Such practice?was later called gerrymandering, which refers to an unfair division of?electoral districts?in favor of?a particular?party to win as many seats as possible and cement its advantage.

The US?conducts?a census every ten years. Following the completion of the census, redistricting or the redrawing of electoral district boundaries will take place under?the principle of maintaining roughly equal population in every voting district?while considering demographic?shifts. Under the?US Constitution, each?state legislature has the power to redistrict. This leaves room for the majority party in state legislatures to manipulate the redrawing of electoral districts. Two principal?tactics are?often?used in gerrymandering. One is "packing", i.e. concentrating the opposition?party's voters in a few districts, thus giving up these districts to secure the others. The other is "cracking", i.e. splitting up areas where the opposition?party's supporters are concentrated and incorporating them into neighboring districts, thus diluting votes for the opposition party.

On 27 September 2021, the Democratic-governed state of Oregon became the first in the country to complete redistricting. Electoral districts firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party have increased from two to four, and swing districts reduced from two to one.?This means that the Democratic Party can control 83% of the state's congressional districts with 57% of voters. On the contrary, the Republican-controlled state of Texas, with new electoral district boundaries determined?on 25 October 2021, has seen districts held by Republicans grow from 22 to 24 and swing districts shrink from six to one. The Republican Party now occupies?65% of state House seats with just 52.1% of voters.

According to a YouGov poll in August 2021, just 16% of US adult?citizens?say?they think?their states'?congressional maps would be drawn fairly, while 44% say?they think the maps would be drawn unfairly and another 40% of adults say?they?are?unsure if the maps will be fair. As US politics grows?more polarized, both?the Republican and Democratic parties are seeking to maximize their own interests, and gerrymandering becomes the best approach.

The?superdelegate system of the Democratic Party is also an impediment to fair election. The superdelegates include major Democratic leaders, members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic members of Congress, and incumbent Democratic governors, and are seated automatically.?The superdelegates may support any candidate they choose or follow the will of the Party leadership?without giving any consideration to the?wishes of the general public.

The late political analyst Mark Plotkin wrote on The Hill that the "Democrats'?superdelegate system is unfair and undemocratic", and "the process of eliminating this elitist exercise should immediately begin".