Since President Donald Trump's 2016 victory, Democrats have increased calls to eliminate the constitutionally mandated Electoral College. MSNBC host Chris Hayes, for example, argued on his show last month the Electoral College is undemocratic and potentially perpetuates systemic racism.
"The weirdest thing about the Electoral College is the fact that if it wasn't specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional," Hayes said.
But, according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Electoral College is here to stay.
Speaking at the University of Chicago on Monday, Ginsburg, the eldest Supreme Court judge, said constitutional changes like abolishing the Electoral College are "more theoretical than real," the Chicago Tribune reported.
"It's largely a dream because our Constitution is ... hard to amend," she said. "I know that from experience."
Though amending the Constitution is an intentionally difficult process, Ginsburg has previously voiced support for eliminating the Electoral College.
"There are some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College," she said in 2017. "But that would require a constitutional amendment, and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do."
Many Democrats believe that America should elect presidents in a directly democratic fashion — despite America being established as a constitutional republic — to prevent a presidential candidate who earns the majority of votes from losing an election.
However, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College to provide states with somewhat equal representation, although larger states still maintain a considerable power advantage over smaller states. For example, California, the most populous state, has 54 electoral votes, whereas Montana has just three.
If the Electoral College did not exist, then America's urban centers, which heavily lean to the left, would likely decide the presidency while smaller, more rural states would have less influence on who becomes president.