In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 65,845,063 votes while Donald Trump won 62,980,160 votes – a difference of nearly three million votes and a 2.1 percentage point lead in the popular vote. The keyword: popular. Despite winning millions more votes than Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton did not win the presidential election. That’s because of the Electoral College system.

This is not the only election where this has happened. In the 2000 election, the Democratic nominee for president won the popular vote by a mere 540,000 votes, approximately, yet also lost the election. However, this was not the only shortcoming of the Electoral College during this election. Historically a swing state, Florida’s electorate gave the Republican nominee, George W. Bush, just hundreds more votes than his Democratic counterpart. Following a lengthy legal battle in the courts, Bush ultimately managed a victory in 2000 after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the landmark case Bush v. Gore. Some say the 2000 election was determined by just 300 votes, but really Bush only won by one vote in the Supreme Court.

The framers of the Constitution initially created the Electoral College system to prevent a direct election of the President. In Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist #68, he stated “that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” Essentially, Hamilton did not trust the election of the President to be in the hands of “the general mass,” but rather a selected group of individuals known as the Electoral College.

However, the intentions of this system are no longer relevant in America. After massive leaps in technology and education, the American electorate is more than capable of directly electing their own president.

At the time the Constitution was written, there were only a fraction of the states there are today. With 50 states, the application of the Electoral College has many implications for campaigning during presidential elections. In the 2016 election, two-thirds of general-election campaign events were in just 6 states. Similarly, among Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, the candidates spent 71 percent of their advertising money. The presidential election is presumed to represent the voices of all 50 states, not just the voices of voters in Pennsylvania, Florida, and other swing states. Abolishing the Electoral College would require candidates to spend campaign time and money across the country.

Voters often feel like their vote is not worth as much in their state compared to other states – and they’re right. A state like Wyoming, with a population of just 578,759, has 3 electoral votes. In contrast, California, with a population of almost 40 million, has 55 electoral votes. Proportionally, each Wyoming electoral vote represents about 192,919 Americans, while each California electoral vote represents about 718,404 Americans – a clear discrepancy of voter representation.

In an already disproportionate system, currently Democratic voters in solid-red and Republican voters solid-blue states are often discouraged from voting as they feel their vote is not as valid in their party-dominated states. By abolishing the Electoral College, a vote in every state, big or small, red or blue, would have equal weight.

Despite the many benefits that would accompany a new electoral system, there are some advantages to our current system. If the United States depended solely on the popular vote to determine national elections, a razor-thin margin in the popular vote would warrant a recount of the hundreds of millions of votes cast nationwide. In the case of the 2000 election, the close race between candidates only required the recount of the state of Florida. The strict 270-point requirement to win the electoral vote allows for a definitive victor following the election. A nationwide recount of the popular vote would be disastrous.

The best option is a compromise between the Electoral College and the popular vote through as a proportional apportionment of the Electoral College. Each state would be divided into electoral districts with one vote and an elector would vote based on which candidate received the majority of their district’s votes, not their state’s votes. This system would also maintain the point system included with the current Electoral College and would allow every election to still have a distinct winner.

Though there are clear flaws in our election system, efforts to abolish or change the Electoral College would call for a constitutional amendment, requiring ratification by two-thirds of state legislatures. Two-thirds of either house of Congress must vote to propose the amendment and given the polarized nature of our current politics, it is unlikely either of these is likely to happen. It is likely that in 2020 and elections to come, the president will still be decided by just a few influential swing states. As a country founded on revolutionary principles of democracy, America should seek the voices of every American in our elections.

Aidan Ocampo is a Medill freshman. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.