The person who gets the most votes in next week’s presidential election may not be our next president. With our Electoral College, if a candidate loses by large margins in some states but narrowly wins states with 270 electoral votes, that person can win the presidency while losing the nationwide vote. “We the people” then takes on an ironic twist.

We should not assume, however, that if we directly elected the president that the winner of the popular vote in our present system would necessarily have won even without the Electoral College. Incentives to vote would be different. Campaigns would be different. And voting rules might change.

With a direct election, all voters would have an equal incentive to vote because all votes would matter equally. That does not exist now. An additional 50,000 votes for Trump or Harris in New York or California or Missouri or many other states would change nothing under our present system. There is little incentive to vote for president in a “safe” state. However, with the direct election of the president, voters in safe states would have more incentive to go to the polls than now. We would probably have more voters in some states than we do now.

The incentives for campaigners would also change. Now, candidates are mostly concerned with the swing states. A one percent increase for Harris or Trump could determine all the electoral votes from Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. However, a one percent increase for a candidate in the Badger State is about 30,000 votes. Now a one percent increase for a candidate in California changes nothing. All of the electoral votes will go to Harris with or without the increase. However, such a California increase means about 100,000 more nationwide popular votes. If the popular vote controlled, candidates would focus on all of the country not just a few states.

Campaign promises would also become different. Think about Iowa and the primaries. Don’t all candidates swear to support ethanol because they think defending the corn crop is high on the list of Iowa voters? If Michigan is viewed as a swing state, candidates appearing in Detroit or Battle Creek can be expected to make promises that especially appeal to Michigan voters. In safe states, such as Alabama, Mississippi, New York, California, or Louisiana, candidates do not now have to make the kind of pandering promises they make in swing states. If, however, each vote truly mattered as much in Mississippi as in Michigan, candidates would have the same incentive to pander in both places.

States would have different incentives than now for setting voter standards. We have some national voter standards. The Constitution guarantees that Blacks, women, and eighteen-year-olds can vote and that there can’t be a poll tax. Federal law says that only citizens can vote. But much that affects how many people will vote is left to the states. For example, states have different laws concerning the disenfranchisement of convicted felons. A few states allow all to vote. Some states permanently bar convicts from voting. Some states prohibit those in prison from voting. And so on. As a result, a higher percentage of the population can be eligible to vote in State A than in State B. And of course, states differ on such things as when the polls are open, who can use a mail-in ballot, rules on registration, and identity requirements, all of which can affect voter turnout, which would be important in a truly national election. Now many states do things to make voting harder with the knowledge that fewer voters will not affect the state’s power in the Electoral College. Fewer voters, however, will negatively affect the state’s power if the presidential election went to the winner of the popular vote. At least some states might reconsider their voting requirements if the Electoral College were abolished.