On election night, Americans across the country were focused on one number: 270.

It’s a well-known – and hotly-contentious – fact that in American politics, presidential candidates must win 270 Electoral College votes to secure the White House. While news media rushed to declare the candidate with the most Electoral College votes on or around Election Day, the Electoral College’s work does not begin, nor end, on Election Day. Instead, electors cast their official votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the presidential election, which this election cycle falls on December 17.

At the ACLU, we have long argued that the Electoral College is an antiquated and undemocratic process for choosing the highest elected offices in our nation. So why do we have the Electoral College? What does it really do and do we actually need it? The ACLU explains.

Though the term "Electoral College" doesn't appear in the Constitution, it was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to address disagreements over how to select the president and vice president. The original system, outlined in Article II of the Constitution, allowed each elector to cast two votes for president, with the candidate who received the most votes becoming president and the second place finisher becoming vice president. This led to complications when political rivals were elected to these roles, prompting the adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which required electors to cast separate votes for each office.

At the time, regional divisions also influenced the College’s creation. Southern states, where non-voting enslaved people made up about one-third of the population, opposed a direct popular vote that would have given their states less votes. After much debate, the convention eventually reached the decision to establish the system we now refer to as the Electoral College, applying the three-fifths compromise that counted three out of five enslaved people as part of a state’s total population, though they were still prohibited from voting.

The number of Electoral College votes allocated to each state is equal to its total representation in Congress: two votes for its Senators and a number corresponding to its members in the House of Representatives. This allocation is based on the Census, which determines congressional apportionment every 10 years. In total, the Electoral College consists of 538 members, including three votes for the District of Columbia, granted by the 23rd Amendment ratified in 1961. A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president.

The process for selecting electors varies by state, but typically involves a two-step process. Political parties first nominate a slate of electors who pledge to support their party’s candidate before the general election, often selecting party loyalists, state officials, or individuals with ties to their candidate. On Election Day, voters choose their state’s electors indirectly by voting for their preferred presidential candidate. Most states follow a winner-take-all system in which the candidate with the most votes receives all of the electoral votes in the state. Maine and Nebraska use a proportional allocation system, assigning two “at-large” electors to the overall statewide winner and appointing individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district.

Electors are not bound by the Constitution to vote according to the states’ popular vote, but more than 30 states and Washington D.C. have laws that legally obligate them to do so. Some states, such as South Carolina and Oklahoma, even impose criminal action or fines against electors that stray from the states’ popular vote.

Electors don't actually vote until December – more than a month after the election. During their meeting, electors formally cast separate votes for president and vice president with their results recorded on Certificates of Vote that are sent to the vice president acting as president of the Senate, relevant state officials, the local federal district courts, and the National Archives. These certificates must reach Washington, D.C. by December 25 to be included in the official count.

The final count, however, doesn't occur until even later. This year, on January 6, during a joint session of Congress, officials will declare the president and vice president. The president-elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in two weeks later. If no candidate receives a majority of at least 270 votes, the election is decided by Congress, with the House selecting the president and the Senate choosing the vice president.

The ACLU has opposed the Electoral College since 1969 for non-partisan reasons, including its undemocratic and unpredictable nature. Unfortunately, amending the Constitution to eliminate this antiquated system is difficult not just because amending the Constitution is hard – it would require at least 37 states to agree to a proposed change – but because the College’s supporters believe that it is a way to give small states power. States receive electoral votes equal to its congressional delegation, guaranteeing a minimum of three votes regardless of population size. This system elevates the influence of smaller states, as larger states would otherwise dominate national elections.

The Electoral College thwarts the fundamental principle of “one person, one vote” by awarding each state a number of electoral votes equal to its allocation of representatives plus its two senators. A voter in Wyoming thus has more than three times as much influence on the presidential election as a voter in more densely-populated California. That’s not to mention the racial and ethnic disparities in voting power that influence how electoral votes are allocated. One study calculated that Asian-Americans have barely more than half the voting power of white Americans because they tend to live in “safe” states — like Democratic-leaning New York and California and Republican-leaning Texas.

Right now, the Electoral College harms democracy when it:

• Nullifies the popular vote. In five presidential elections, the winner of the electoral college has lost the popular vote. This means that a presidential candidate that did not achieve a majority of the votes and was not supported by a majority or even plurality of the American people can still win through the electoral college and thus the election. Critics argue that the nullification of the popular vote also has a negative effect on voter turnout, discouraging voters from feeling like voting matters.
• Shrouds Electors in Secrecy. In most states, there is very little public information about how electors are selected and who they are. The process is entirely determined by political parties and incorporates little voter input. Many states also do not have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, risking the possibility of “faithless” electors who may vote contrary to the will of the voters.
• Gives “swing states” an unfair advantage. The Electoral College system disproportionately benefits certain “swing states” in which the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates from both political parties often invest significant resources and attention in these states, neglecting voters in states with a more predictable political leaning.

The Electoral College undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” by giving disproportionate influence to smaller states and swing states allowing a candidate to potentially win the presidency without securing the popular vote. This outdated system fails to reflect the will of the people in a modern democracy, creating inequities in representation. Despite the uphill battle, amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College would ensure that every vote carries equal weight in presidential elections.

Sports stadiums around the country have begun using face recognition to identify ticket holders, threatening to normalize a uniquely powerful surveillance technology that has already been used for abusive purposes. Worse, companies involved are already planning big expansions, raising the specter of a world where our faces become not just our ticket at sports stadiums, but a passport we’re forced to show across society.

Face recognition has been creeping into stadiums for roughly six years. In 2018, a security group used face recognition on fans at a Taylor Swift concert and Madison Square Garden began scanning the faces of attendees, supposedly as a security measure. The Garden’s security rationale was undermined a few years later when the technology was used to identify and eject lawyers who happened to work for a large firm where another lawyer was suing The Garden’s billionaire owner, James Dolan. Dolan, whose companies own many arenas around the country, had previously used his control over them to permanently ban a Knicks fan who, upset over a losing streak, told Dolan he should sell the team. Face recognition technology not only allowed Donlan to expel the lawyers, but also provided a way for him to ban the disgruntled Knicks fan.

These abuses rightly sparked controversy and focused national attention on the potential misuses of face recognition. But, beyond security and marketing deployments, it’s also worth paying attention to the use of the technology for ordinary access control.

In recent years many sports arenas and leagues have embraced face recognition. In 2018 baseball stadiums started using face recognition for admittance by partnering with the airport company CLEAR. In August 2024, the NFL announced that it was deploying face recognition to control access to restricted areas in stadiums, such as offices, press boxes, and locker rooms. Meanwhile, a number of NFL teams have begun offering fans the option to use face recognition instead of tickets to enter stadiums. That involves sharing a photo of one’s face with the monopolistic company Ticketmaster, which is then compared against a photo taken when you enter the stadium. In September, an executive with the company Wicket told a D.C. conference that the company planned to provide face recognition ticketing services to more than 40 stadiums “across all the major leagues.” Other vendors are providing similar services.

These deployments have drawn protests — not only from privacy advocates, but also from police officers who work stadiums. In Las Vegas, both the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the local police union objected to participating in the NFL’s secure-area face recognition program at Allegiant stadium, and subsequently refused to participate in it. The police union president told the Associated Press that “[Privacy is] what everybody’s concerned about — taking our personal information and sharing it with vendors and teams.”

Some have called stadiums “the future of surveillance.” Indeed, what is happening in stadiums shows signs of spreading elsewhere. Certainly, the corporate providers have big plans. An official with the Cleveland Browns, which was an early adopter of Wicket’s services and whose owner is a Wicket investor, spoke at the D.C. conference about how he’d like faces to become a unique identifier across a variety of services. “Ticketmaster runs our ticketing, we have a concessions partner that runs our concessions, we have a merchandising partner,” he said. “I would love to get to the point where a customer’s face or a fan’s face could be their identity to all these different platforms [and where] all this technology is tied to your identity.”

Sports companies may already be eager to see face recognition used as a unique identifier across the sporting world, but there’s little reason to think it will be contained to sports. The Wicket executive said his company has already expanded to offering face recognition as the means of entry to large conferences and that “some of the [sports] venues we’re in are starting to use us for other purposes beyond just sporting events.” He said they’re also starting to talk to venues that only host concerts.

All of this expansion raises the question: where will it end? Are we looking at a future where face recognition is used everywhere and we can’t escape it? It’s already being pushed as a replacement for credentials in airports by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) in what are the first government face-recognition checkpoints. It is also used in a few public housing facilities for access control as well as security. But it’s also being used in the private sector to access various facilities, including some office and apartment buildings. Universal Studios has rolled out face-recognition access control at its theme parks in Florida. (“We have done this at our park in Beijing,” a Universal executive boasted to a reporter, seemingly oblivious of the irony.)

What happens if this technology starts appearing everywhere? The identity company Idemia, which sells face-recognition access control devices, promises “Frictionless Access Everywhere!” It and other vendors, which include a number of Chinese companies, mention banks, medical offices, hotels, public transportation, retail stores, schools, and restaurants. CLEAR has expanded its face recognition ID service from airports to Uber, LinkedIn, and tool rental at Home Depot, and wants to become the “universal identity platform” for the physical world.

If this happens, it will be in part because companies have embraced the efficiencies, the marketing advantages, and the security advantages that may be gained from switching to face recognition. They’ll claim it will shorten lines, though it’s unclear how much more efficiency, if any, face recognition provides over barcode tickets. If it is faster, what it’s really doing is increasing profits for businesses — after all, short lines and quick entrances are always possible if the venues will just pay enough workers to staff the entrances.

These efforts may also connect with another technology the ACLU is watching closely: digital driver’s licenses. A Los Angeles stadium executive, Christian Lau, said at the D.C. conference that “We’re also rolling out mobile driver’s licenses acceptance in California…. We’ll have a whole marketing campaign around it. It’s going to be really cool, and we’ll tie all of our systems together ultimately.”

All this might be great for billionaires, team owners, and big companies, but none of it would be good for ordinary people. The ACLU is concerned that:

• You can’t reset your face, which means you can’t reset your relationship with any of the entities that use it, who will never forget your history of transactions. That empowers them and disempowers you. We will lose control of when we’re being identified and checked and when we’re not.
• The face you present to one company is the same face you present to all the others, which makes it easy for them to get together and compare notes on your behavior. When your face is your ID, your ID is plain for all to see. Plans to “tie all our systems together” should be heard as an ominous warning.
• Centralized data stores always raise questions of data security and breaches. Faceprint databases are no exception, and a breach could result in fraud and other harm to the people whose data is being held. For example, stolen faceprints could be used to hijack pay-by-face apps and steal goods and services. This is particularly worrisome because again, while a credit card or account number can be changed after a breach, you are stuck with your face.
• The more companies that have your face, the more they can use that face in other contexts and places for other purposes — such as security uses and blacklists. Not only can’t you reset your face, you can’t likely live your life covering it. As we’ve already seen at Madison Square Garden, it’s a small step from using your face to ticket you to using your face to ban you.

The use of face recognition for watchlists may be one of the most inevitable and consequential side effects of “your face is your ticket.” Watchlists mean false positives and failures to update, producing situations where people are mistaken for others who are wanted or banned. They likely mean abusive private blacklists as companies collude – often through third parties – to share people they wish to exclude. There’s a long history of private and quasi-private watchlists being abused, going back to the labor battles of the early 20th century, when workers and organizers were blacklisted as “troublemakers” and could have trouble getting a job. Watchlists also likely mean a lack of due process over who is targeted. We’ve seen that in most watchlist programs in recent decades, especially those run by the government, even though it, unlike private companies, is bound by at least some checks like the Privacy Act and the Fourth Amendment.

As the stadium executive Lau noted, praising the advent of face recognition, “We can all thank Apple, because FaceID has gotten people so used to unlocking their phones, they don’t think about it.” But Apple designed their unlocking systems such that your facial image never leaves your phone. That means it’s a completely different ballgame than sharing your face with the network of billionaires and monopolists that control the sports world, and the business world beyond sports. There is a big difference between face recognition being used by you, and face recognition being used on you.

The danger is that uncritical mass acceptance of these technologies for some very slight convenience will usher in a world where they become inescapable. If you’re offered the option to use face recognition next time you’re seeking admittance somewhere, you should opt out — this is not a trend that will be good for you. Policymakers and companies should also say no to face recognition technology for access control. It’s just not that hard to use a ticket.

In the midst of a nationwide, unprecedented drug overdose crisis, syringe services programs have never been more important. Syringe services programs are community-based programs that provide access to sterile injection equipment and a range of other essential, lifesaving care.

People who use drugs need access to health and social services, not ineffective and disproven war on drugs tactics that rely on arrest and incarceration. Syringe services programs are just one example of how we can meet people where they are, protect public health, and reduce mortality from drug use. This “harm reduction” approach provides people with appropriate care and services, rather than shaming or coercing them into treatment.

The rise of synthetic opioids like fentanyl has left an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable drug supply and as a result, more and more lives have been put at grave risk. For the third straight year, more than 100,000 people in America died from a drug overdose in 2023. Drug-overdose deaths surpassed deaths from both gun violence and car crashes, and remain roughly four times higher than the overdose deaths just two decades ago.

Ordinary people across the nation are courageously stepping up to fight the overdose crisis and save lives. In Pueblo, Colorado, the Colorado Health Network and the Southern Colorado Harm Reduction Association operate the only two syringe services programs in a 50-mile radius. They provide a variety of harm-reduction services to the community, including access to sterile syringes, life-saving naloxone that has reversed hundreds of overdoses in the area, referrals to treatment when people are ready for it, and other health services like vaccinations and STI checks for people who are otherwise underserved by the healthcare system.

Thirty years of extensive research demonstrates that syringe service programs have a multitude of benefits. Participants are five times more likely to go to treatment and three times more likely to stop using drugs than people who use drugs and do not participate in a syringe services program. Access to sterile syringes also decreases the incidence of infectious diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C, while improving public safety by reducing syringe litter.

Despite these overwhelming benefits to both public health and public safety, Pueblo, Colorado chose to ban syringe services programs within city limits, deeming them a “specific nuisance ... detrimental to the health ... of the inhabitants of this City.” This ban led to a dramatic decrease in the number of people able to access sterile syringes – and a host of other needed-services – from local harm-reduction agencies.

The ACLU of Colorado sued the city of Pueblo and, in August, a court invalidated Pueblo’s ordinance, allowing the harm-reduction groups to resume distribution of sterile syringes to participants in their programs. The court held that Colorado state law permitting syringe services programs to operate pre-empted Pueblo’s contrary local ordinance banning them.

Unfortunately, the city of Pueblo is not the only jurisdiction that has enacted discriminatory ordinances. Despite the evidence, some believe that syringe services programs increase syringe litter and encourage drug use, constituting a nuisance to the city. This argument may have some intuitive appeal, but the reality is that the opposite is true — syringe services programs support improved public health and public safety.

To save lives and to address the overdose crisis, we need more syringe services programs and other harm reduction tools, not bans on necessary health care for people who use drugs.