Electoral College (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electoral votes by state/federal district, for the elections of 2004 and 2008

Cartogram representation of the Electoral College for the 2004 election. Each square represents one electoral vote.

Electoral College map showing the results of the 2004 US Presidential Election. President George W. Bush won the popular vote in 31 states (denoted in red) with 286 electoral votes. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts won the popular vote in 19 states and the District of Columbia (denoted in blue) and 251 electoral votes. A Minnesota elector cast his Presidential and Vice Presidential votes for Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. After the 2000 election it has become customary for states won by Democratic candidates to be colored blue and states won by Republican candidates to be colored red on Electoral College maps.

The Electoral College consists of 538 popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States.^[1] The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens cast votes for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates^[2] and voters cast ballots for favored Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.^[3] Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. U.S. Presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, Washington, D.C. is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states.^[4] U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Each elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes cast for that office. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives.^[5] Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.^[6]

The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote rule where voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. The two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. U.S. Presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous elections (50 states plus the District of Columbia), rather than a single national election.

Candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a Presidential election and still win that election. This occurred in 1876, 1888 and 2000. Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.

[edit] Background

At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan used as the basis for discussions called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature.^[7] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.^[8] However, a committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the Office of the President.^[9] Though some delegates preferred popular election, the committee's proposal was approved, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.^[10]

In the Federalist Papers No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses, one state-based (Senate) and the other population-based (House of Representatives) in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general. Both the Congress and the President would be elected by mixed state-based and population-based means.^[11]

[edit] Origin of name

The name Electoral College is not given in the United States Constitution, and it was not until the early 1800s that it came into general usage as the designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."^[12]

[edit] Original plan

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided for the original fashion by which the President and Vice President were to be chosen by the electors. The primary difference was that each elector voted for two Persons for President, rather than one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. After the choosing of the President, whoever had the most electoral votes, among the remaining candidates, would become the Vice President.

The emergence of political parties complicated matters in the elections of 1796 and 1800. In 1796, the winner of the election was John Adams, a member of the Federalist Party, and the runner up (and therefore the new Vice President) was Thomas Jefferson, a member of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party.

In 1800, the candidates of the Democratic-Republican Party (Jefferson for President and Aaron Burr for Vice President) each tied for first place. However, since all electoral votes were for President, Burr's votes were technically for him being President even though he was his party's second choice. Jefferson was so hated by Federalists that the party members sitting in Congress tried to elect Burr. The Congress deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary vote of a majority (nine) of the state delegations in the House. Only after Federalist Party leader Alexander Hamilton—who disliked Burr—made known his preference for Jefferson was the issue resolved on the 36th ballot.

In response to those elections, the Congress proposed the Twelfth Amendment—with electors casting one vote for President and one vote for Vice President—to replace the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed in 1803 and was adopted in 1804.

[edit] Electoral College mechanics

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,^[13] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to appoint electors (this was not the case for all states in the 18th and 19th century). Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President.

A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for President, or Vice President, that election is determined via a contingency procedure in the Twelfth Amendment, which is explained in detail below.

[edit] Apportionment of electors

Further information: United States congressional apportionment

The size of the Electoral College is equal to the total membership of both Houses of Congress (435 Representatives and 100 Senators) plus the three electors allocated to Washington, D.C., totaling 538 electors.

Each state is allocated as many electors as it has Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress.^[14][15] Since the most populous states have the most seats in the House of Representatives, they also have the most electors. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21) and Pennsylvania (21). The seven smallest states by population—Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming—each has three electors. The number of representatives for each state is determined decennially by the United States Census, thus determining the number of electoral votes for each state until the next census reallocation.

Under the Twenty-third Amendment, Washington, D.C. is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state, but not more electors than the least populous state. The least populous state (Wyoming) has three electors; thus, D.C. cannot have more than three electors. Even if D.C. were a state, its current population would entitle it to three electors; based on its population per electoral vote, the District of Columbia has the second highest per-capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming.^[16]

[edit] Nomination of electors

Candidates for elector are nominated by their state political parties in the months prior to Election Day. The U.S. Constitution delegates to each state the authority for nominating and choosing its electors. In some states, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina nominate electors in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of each candidate name their candidates for presidential elector (an attempt to discourage faithless electors).

[edit] Disqualification of electors

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, no person holding a federal office, either elected or appointed, may become an elector.^[17] Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and has then later rebelled against the United States, is barred from serving in the Electoral College. However, the Congress may remove this disability by a two-thirds vote in both Houses.

[edit] Election Day

Federal law sets the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November as the day for holding federal elections.^[18]

The manner for choosing electors is determined within each state by its legislature.^[19] Currently, all states choose electors by popular election on the date specified by federal law. While many people may believe they are voting for their Presidential candidate, they are in actuality casting their vote for that candidate's electors.

All states—except two—employ the winner-takes-all method, awarding the state's presidential electors as a single bloc. The exceptions, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972, and in Nebraska since 1992.

[edit] Meetings of electors

Certificate for the electoral vote for Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler for the State of Louisiana

Electors chosen on Election Day meet in their respective state capitals (or in the case of Washington, D.C., within the District) on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President.

The Electoral College never meets as one body. Although procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow. The meeting is opened by the election certification official—often each state's Secretary of State or equivalent—who reads the Certificate of Ascertainment. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the electoral votes. Those present answer to their name, and they then fill any vacancies in their number. The next step is the selection of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not himself an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many states, political officials give short speeches at this point in the proceedings.

When the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for President of the political party of the Electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for President. In New Jersey, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. The next step is the casting of the vote for Vice President, which follows a similar pattern.

After the voting is complete, the electors complete the Certificate of Vote. This document states the number of electoral votes cast for President and Vice President, and who received those votes. The state election official usually has pre-printed forms ready, and the tellers usually only write down the number of votes cast for appropriate candidates. Five copies of the Certificate of Vote are completed and signed by each Elector. Multiple copies of the Certificate of Vote are signed, in order to provide multiple originals in case one is lost. One copy is sent to President of the U.S. Senate (the sitting Vice President of the United States) by certified mail.

A staff member of the Office of the Vice President (here, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate) collects the Certificates of Vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of Congress. The Certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. The states Alabama through Missouri (including Washington, D.C.) are placed in one box, and the states Montana through Wyoming are placed in the second box.

[edit] Faithless electors

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (April 2008)

Main article: Faithless elector

A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect, or who refuses to vote for any candidate. There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan specify that his or her vote shall be cancelled.^[20]

As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.

While not involving a "faithless elector" as such, there have been two instances in which a candidate died between the selection of the electors in November and the Electoral College vote in December. In the election of 1872, Democratic candidate Horace Greeley passed away before the meeting of the Electoral College; the electors who were to have voted for Greeley, finding themselves in a state of disarray, split their votes across several candidates, including three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. However, President Ulysses S. Grant, the Republican incumbent, had already won an absolute majority of electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was no pressure to agree on a replacement candidate. Similarly, in the election of 1912, after the Republicans had nominated incumbent President William Howard Taft and Vice President James S. Sherman, Sherman died shortly before the election, too late to change the names on the ballot, thus causing Sherman to be listed posthumously. That ticket finished third behind the Democrats (Woodrow Wilson) and the Progressives (Theodore Roosevelt), and the eight electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast instead for Nicholas M. Butler. Electors pledged to a dead candidate are free to vote for whomever they wish just as electors pledged to a live candidate are.

Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of a presidential election in any election to date.

[edit] Joint session of Congress and the contingent election

The Twelfth Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session.^[21] Additionally, federal law mandates that such joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election take place on the sixth day of January in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.^[22] The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. The sitting Vice President is expected to preside, but in several cases the President pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings instead. The Vice President and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote. Relevant portions of the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order. If there are no objections, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote and, if applicable, states who is elected President and Vice President. The Senators then depart from the House Chamber.

[edit] Contingent presidential election by House

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority (270 votes) of the 538 electoral votes.

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote. To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of state votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

The House of Representatives has chosen the President only twice: once under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (in 1801) and once under the Twelfth Amendment (in 1825).

[edit] Contingent vice presidential election by Senate

If no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to elect a Vice President. The Senate is limited to choosing from only the top two candidates to have received electoral votes (one fewer than the number to which the House is limited). The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each Senator, and not by State delegations). However, two-thirds of the Senators must be present for voting to take place.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that a "majority of the whole number" of Senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election. ^[23] The Constitution is not explicit about whether the President of the Senate can vote to break a tie, and legal scholars differ on the point.^[24] Nevertheless, the absence or abstention of one or more Senators would easily render the point moot.^[25]

The only time the Senate chose the Vice President was in 1837. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical role call and voting viva voce. The rules further state, "... and if a majority of the number of Senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States..."^[26]

[edit] Deadlocked chambers

If the House of Representatives has not chosen a President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until the House should select a President. If the winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become Acting President until either the House should select a President or the Senate should select a Vice President.

[edit] Alternative methods of choosing electors

The current system of choosing presidential electors is called the short ballot. In all states, voters choose among slates of candidates for the associated elector; only a few states list the names of the presidential electors on the ballot. In some states, if a voter wishes to write in a candidate for president, the voter also is required to write-in the names of candidates for elector.

Before the advent of the short ballot in the early twentieth century, the most common means of electing the presidential electors was through the general ticket. The general ticket is quite similar to the current system and is often confused with it. In the general ticket, voters cast ballots for individuals running for presidential elector (while in the short ballot, voters cast ballots for an entire slate of electors). In the general ticket, the state canvass would report the number of votes cast for each candidate for elector, a complicated process in states like New York with multiple positions to fill. Both the general ticket and the short ballot are often considered at-large or winner-takes-all voting. The short ballot was adopted by the various states at different times; it was adopted for use by North Carolina and Ohio in 1932 (possibly the first year in which it was used). Alabama was still using the general ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot.

The question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature's choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote that these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power." In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000) a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on McPherson. On the other hand, three justices, dissenting in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), wrote that "nothing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it."^[27]

[edit] Appointment by state legislature

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

Another method of choosing electors is selection by the state legislature. It was used by a majority of the states in both 1792 and 1800, and half of the states in 1812. One of the reasons that most United States history textbooks don't start reporting the popular vote until the election of 1824 is because more than a quarter of all the states used legislative choice in all prior elections; there simply was no popular vote in those states. Even in 1824, when Andrew Jackson famously accused John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay of a corrupt bargain because he lost in spite of having pluralities of both the popular and electoral votes, a full quarter of the states (6 of 24) did not hold popular elections for President and Vice President; instead, those six state legislatures choose the electors that year. By the following election, only Delaware and South Carolina continued to use legislative choice. Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832). South Carolina held on to legislative choice until it became the first state to secede in December 1860.

Legislative appointment made three more appearances on the electoral stage: first, in 1864, Nevada, having been made a state only a few days previously, had no choice but to appoint. Then, in 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections. Finally, in 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold an election. It was also a possibility in the 2000 election. Had the recounts continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal deadline for choosing electors.

The Constitution gives the power to the state legislatures to decide how electors are chosen, and it is easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature has a serious flaw: legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. In fact, this is precisely what happened in 1789, when New York failed to appoint any electors.

[edit] Electoral districts

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

Another method for choosing electors is to divide a state into electoral districts, and the voters of each district choose a single elector, much as states are currently divided into Congressional districts for choosing Representatives. Electoral districts could not correspond with Congressional districts, unless two of that state's electors were chosen differently (just as Senators are elected unrelated to Congressional districts). As with Congressional districts, moreover, this method is vulnerable to gerrymandering.

States which have used electoral districting and the years used:

• Illinois: 1820, 1824.
• Kentucky: 1792, 1796, 1800, 1804, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1820, 1824.
• Maryland: 1796, 1800, 1804, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1820, 1824, 1828, 1832.
• Michigan: 1892.
• Missouri: 1824.
• North Carolina: 1796, 1800, 1804, 1808.
• Tennessee: 1804, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1820, 1824, 1828.
• Virginia: 1789, 1792, 1796.

[edit] Congressional District Method

The Congressional District Method (a.k.a., Maine-Nebraska Method) is an alternative way of distributing electoral votes within a state. In the winner take all system the popular vote winner of the statewide vote receives all of that state’s electoral votes. In the Congressional District Method the Electoral votes are distributed based on the popular vote winner of each of the state’s individual congressional districts, with the statewide popular vote winner receiving two additional electoral votes.^[28]

The number of electoral votes allocated to each state is equal to the number of representatives the state has in the Congress.^[29] The two votes that a candidate receives for winning the statewide popular vote come from the two electoral votes that each state receives from the members in the Senate to which each state is entitled. The other electoral votes that a state has come from the respective number of members of the House of Representatives to which each state is entitled.

Currently only two states, Maine and Nebraska, use the Congressional District Method for distributing their electoral votes. Maine has four electoral votes based on its two Representatives and two Senators. In Nebraska there are two Senators and three Representatives giving it five electoral votes.^[30]

The Congressional District Method was first used by Massachusetts in the elections of 1804, 1812, and 1820. After seceding from Massachusetts, Maine used this method through the election of 1828.^[31] Maine resumed using the Congressional District Method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the Congressional District Method since the election of 1992.^[32][33]

The Congressional District Method allows for the chance for states to split their electoral vote between multiple candidates. However, even though Maine and Nebraska have been using the method for twenty-six and sixteen years respectively neither has ever split their electoral, probably because of the small number of electoral districts.^[28] Therefore, if states with more congressional representatives used this method, more frequent split electoral votes would likely occur.

The Congressional District Method is closer to one man, one vote than the current winner take all system, because an individual's vote has a larger weight to it.^[34] In addition, the Congressional District Method can be more easily implemented than other alternatives to the winner take all method. Each state only has to pass legislation in order to use the new method, instead of having to pass a constitutional amendment like some other Electoral College reform options.^[34] The Congressional District Method has its benefits, but there are also criticisms of it. For instance, candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state, and cases of gerrymandering could arise with political parties trying to draw up as many safe districts as they can.^[35]

[edit] Proportional vote

Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.^[36]

[edit] Contemporary conflict over the Electoral College

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008)

[edit] Claims against the Electoral College

[edit] Irrelevancy of national popular vote

This graphic demonstrates how the winner of the popular vote can still lose in a hypothetical electoral college system.

In the elections of 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate receiving the plurality of the nationwide popular vote did not become President.^[37] Opponents of the Electoral College submit that such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function.

Outcomes of this sort are attributable to the federal nature of the system. As such, argue supporters of the Electoral College, candidates must build a popular base that is geographically broader and more diverse in voter interests.

Scenarios exhibiting this outcome typically result when the winning candidate has won the requisite configuration of states (and thus their votes) by small margins while his opponent captured large voter margins in the remaining states. Given the 2000 allocation of electors, it is possible a candidate could win with only the hair's width support of the 11 largest states. In such an example, the very large margins secured by the losing candidate in the other states would aggregate to well over 50 percent of the ballots cast nationally. Claims that the Electoral College suppresses the popular will are therefore legitimately open to debate.

However, a result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the national popular vote is irrelevant, both voters and candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College.

Altogether, the ultimate consequence of such functions in any close race has candidates campaigning to maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to maximize national popular vote totals.

[edit] Focus on large swing states

These maps show the amount of attention given to each state by the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of the 2004 election. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period.

Most states use a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes. This gives candidates an incentive to pay the most attention to states without a clear favorite, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. For example, California, Texas, and New York, in spite of having the largest populations, have in recent elections been considered safe for a particular party (Democratic for California and New York; Republican for Texas), and therefore candidates typically devote relatively few resources, in both time and money, to such states.

It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win. If a small number of voters were to vote in those eleven states, the other major ticket could overwhelmingly win the popular vote and still lose the election - if a candidate received one vote in each of these states, and no one else did, and his/her opponent received every vote in every other state, the candidate could become president with 130 million votes less than their opponent (assuming 80% of the population of each state can vote). Such an extreme outcome has never occurred. In the close elections of 2000 and 2004, these eleven states gave 111 votes to Republican candidate George W. Bush and 160 votes to Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry.

Proponents of the Electoral College claim that adoption of the popular vote would simply shift the disproportionate focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.^[38] Candidates might also be inclined to campaign hardest in their base areas to maximize turnout among core supporters, and ignore more closely divided parts of the country. Whether such developments would be good or bad is a matter of normative political theory and political interests of the voters in question.

[edit] Discourages turnout and participation

Because it does not matter how many people turn out to vote in a given state, the Electoral College eliminates any advantage to a political party or campaign for encouraging voters to turn out (except in the few closely fought swing states).^[39] If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.^[40] Individuals would similarly have a strong incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation very significantly.^[39]

[edit] Allows states to disenfranchise citizens without penalty

If a state makes it harder for its citizens to vote, whether by making voting more difficult or expensive, or by legally disenfranchising some citizens (such as ex-felons) from voting, and turnout in the state is reduced as a result, the Electoral College insulates the state from being penalized. In fact, legal scholars Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar point out that the original compromise of the Electoral College was largely due to this very fact. Direct national election of the President (which was proposed by a delegate from Pennsylvania) would have enabled the North to outvote the South, because "the South would get no credit for its half-million slaves, none of whom, of course, would be able to vote. The electoral college system that ultimately emerged gave the South partial -- three-fifths -- credit for its slaves."^[41] The Electoral College compromise thus allowed states to disenfranchise large numbers of citizens while maintaining the same influence in the electoral college. Amar and Amar note, "The founders' system also encouraged the continued disenfranchisement of women. In a direct national election system, any state that gave women the vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no such incentive to increase the franchise; as with slaves, what mattered was how many women lived in a state, not how many were empowered."^[42] The Electoral College continues to insulate states from losing any influence when they disenfranchise or suppress the votes of their citizens -- whether through voter suppression, through making it more difficult or expensive to vote, or through actually taking away some citizens' votes by law. "Even today, a state with low voter turnout gets precisely the same number of electoral votes as if it had a high turnout. By contrast, a well-designed direct election system could spur states to get out the vote."^[42]

[edit] Favors less populous states

As a consequence of giving more per capita voting power to the less populated states, the Electoral College gives disproportionate power to those states' interests. Since each state (except, in some cases, Maine and Nebraska) casts all of its Electoral College votes for either the Republicans or the Democrats, Democrats often assert that the Electoral College system favors the Republican Party by disproportionately boosting the electoral weight of the less populous states, which have tended historically to vote Republican. Attempts have been made to show otherwise using game theory analysis, and specifically using the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI). In this model, individual voters in California (highest electoral vote count) had approximately 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President as voters of Montana (highest population with the minimum 3 electors) in 1990.^[43] However, Banzhaf's analysis has been critiqued as treating votes like coin-flips, and more empirically-based models of voting yield results which seem to favor larger states less.^[44]

[edit] Disadvantage for third parties

In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.^[45]

[edit] Claims in favor of the Electoral College

[edit] Prevents an urban-centric victory

Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas. This means that candidates must make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.^[46]

[edit] Maintains the federal character of the nation

The United States of America is a federal coalition which consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue that the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically-equivalent, portion of a very populous state.

For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.^[47]

[edit] Enhances status of minority groups

Far from decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that, by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and special interests.^[47] This argument does not apply to states that do not employ an all-or-nothing system, for selecting their electors, Maine and Nebraska being the only such states at this time; the argument does apply to individual electors.

[edit] Encourages stability through the two-party system

Many proponents of the Electoral College see its negative effect on third parties as a good thing. They argue that the two party system has provided stability through its ability to change during times of rapid political and cultural change. They believe it protects the most powerful office in the country from control by what these proponents view as regional minorities until they can moderate their views to win broad, long-term support from across the entire nation.

[edit] Death or unsuitability of a candidate

The U.S. constitution grants each state the right to appoint electors in a manner chosen by that state. While it is common to think of the electoral votes impersonally, as mere numbers, the college is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars of the party whose candidate wins each state) with the capacity to adapt to unusual situations. That capacity might be particularly important if, for example, a candidate were to die or become in some other way unsuitable to serve as President or Vice President. Advocates of the current system argue that these electors could then choose a suitable replacement (who would most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won the election) more competently than could the general voting public. Furthermore, the time period during which such a death or the onset of such an unsuitability might call for such an adaptation extends, under the Electoral College system, from before Election Day (many states cannot change ballots at a late stage) until the day the electors vote (the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December). Thus, until the electors cast their votes, it is not a federal issue, per se, but a state's rights issue and state laws (should) regulate the situation. In Virginia, for instance, the law clearly states that the electors must vote for the name of the candidate who they represent on the ballot and therefore these electors are not able to adapt to unusual situations.

In the election of 1872, Democratic candidate Horace Greeley did in fact die before the meeting of the Electoral College, resulting in Democratic disarray; the electors who were to have voted for Greeley split their votes across several candidates, including three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. However, President Ulysses S. Grant, the Republican incumbent, had already won an absolute majority of electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was no pressure to agree on a replacement candidate. There has never been a case of a candidate of the winning party dying.

In the election of 1912, after the Republicans had renominated President Taft and Vice President Sherman, Sherman died shortly before the election, too late to change the names on the ballot, thus causing Sherman to be listed posthumously. That ticket finished third behind the Democrats (Woodrow Wilson) and the Progressives (Theodore Roosevelt), and the 8 electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast for Nicholas M. Butler.

[edit] Isolation of election problems

Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of potential election fraud or other problems to the state where it occurs. The College prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. Recounts, for instance, occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide. Similarly, the College acts to isolate less malicious election problems to the state in which they occur.^[48]

[edit] Neutralizes turnout disparities between states

There are factors that affect the turnout around the country. Weather can vary greatly across a large nation, rain or winter storms can impact voter participation in affected states. In addition, when a state has another high profile contest, such as a hotly contested Senate or gubernatorial race, turnout in that state can be affected. Because the allocation of electoral votes is independent of each state's turnout, the Electoral College neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states.

[edit] Maintains separation of powers

The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.

[edit] Interstate compact

Main article: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

This proposal, also known as the Amar Plan, calls for an interstate compact whereby individual states agree to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The state legislatures of the joining states would then establish a direct election, thereby effectively circumventing the Electoral College, when they collectively have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. The proposal is still 220 electoral votes short of going into effect.

The proposal centers on Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which gives each state legislature the authority to determine how its state's electors are to be chosen. Many partial versions of this plan have emerged over the years.

While the power of each State to determine how it chooses its electors is clearly plenary, what remains unclear is whether such coordination between the States requires the approval of the Congress, pursuant to the Compact Clause of the Constitution, before this compact can take effect.

Currently, four states have joined the compact. The first was Maryland, where Governor Martin O'Malley signed the bill into law on April 10, 2007.^[49] New Jersey joined on January 13, 2008, despite objections from Republicans who criticized the bill as undermining federal elections.^[50] Illinois passed the law on April 7, 2008 ^[51] and was followed by Hawaii on May 1, where the legislature overrode a veto from Governor Linda Lingle.^[52]

[edit] The Bayh-Celler Amendment

The closest the nation has ever come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress.^[53] The presidential election of 1968 had ended with Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes to Hubert Humphrey's 191. Yet, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, equating to less than 1% of the national total. George Wallace received the remaining 46 electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote.^[54]

Representative Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the US House of Representative's Judiciary Committee responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, an Amendment to the United States Constitution which would have abolished the Electoral College and replaced it with a system wherein the pair of candidates who won at least 40% of the national popular vote would win the Presidency and Vice Presidency respectively. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of President and Vice President would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election. The word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President."^[55]

On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted favorably, 28-6, to approve the Amendment.^[56] Debate on the proposed Amendment before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969,^[57] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, being approved by a vote of 339 to 70.^[58]

On September 30, 1969, President Richard Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the Amendment which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1, by Senator Birch Bayh.^[59]

In its October 8, 1969 edition, the New York Times reported that the legislatures of 30 states were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for passage. The paper also reported that 6 other states had yet to state a preference, 6 were leaning toward opposition and 8 were solidly opposed.^[60]

On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the Amendment to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic Senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas and Sam Ervin of North Carolina along with Republican Senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh would indicate that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the Amendment to pass the full Senate. He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican Senators to support the plan.^[61] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the legislation.^[62]

Open debate on the Amendment finally reached the Senate floor on Tuesday, September 8, 1970,^[63] but was quickly faced with a filibuster. The lead objectors to the Amendment were mostly Southern Senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.^[62]

On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, failed to receive the 67 votes, or two-thirds of those Senators voting, necessary to pass.^[64] The vote was 54 to 36 in favor of the motion.^[65] A second motion for cloture was held on September 29, 1970, this time failing 53 to 34, or five votes short of the required two-thirds. Thereafter, the Senate Majority Leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the Amendment aside so that the Senate could attend to other business.^[66] However, the Amendment was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress officially ended on January 3, 1971.

[edit] The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act

Legislation in the Congress (H.R. 1905 and S. 1257) regarding a Representative for Washington, D.C. would increase the size of the House to 437 members. One of the two new seats would go to Washington, D.C. and the other would go to the State of Utah per the 2000 U.S. Census apportionment.

The additional seat to Utah would increase its House delegation to four, consequently increasing its number of Electoral College votes to six. As Washington, D.C. is already given three Electoral College votes by the Twenty-third Amendment, receiving a House seat would neither increase nor decrease its share of the Electoral College.

If the proposed legislation becomes law, and survives any challenges to its constitutionality, the total number of Electoral votes would increase by one to 539. The majority needed to elect a President would remain 270 electoral votes.

On April 19, 2007 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1905 by a vote of 241 in favor, 177 against, 1 present (i.e. abstained).^[67] On September 18, 2007 the Senate fell three votes short of passing a motion to invoke Cloture regarding S. 1257 (60 votes needed to invoke Cloture).^[68]

[edit] Electoral vote distribution

The following table shows the number of electoral votes to which each state and the District of Columbia is entitled:^[69]

* Washington, D.C., although not a state, is granted three electoral votes by the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution.

** Maine and Nebraska electors distributed by way of the Congressional District Method.

[edit] See also

• Electoral college
• United States presidential election
• National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
• Every Vote Counts Amendment
• Electoral vote changes between presidential elections
• List of U.S. states by population

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28109.pdf
• Office of the Federal Register
• H.R. 1905 (The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, as passed by the House)
• S. 1257 (The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, as it stands in the Senate)

[edit] External links

• U.S. Electoral College FAQ (www.archives.gov)
• Historical Documents on the Electoral College
• Electoral Vote
• A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825
• FiveThirtyEight: Electoral Projections Done Right
• 270 to win
• Winning The Electoral College
• PredictNovember.com
• "Math Against Tyranny"
• H.J.RES.4 (proposed constitutional amendment to replace Electoral College with direct popular election of President and Vice President)
• The Green Papers: More detailed description of reform proposals

v • d • e United States topics History Timeline Pre-Columbian · Colonial era (Thirteen Colonies) · Declaration of Independence · American Revolution · Westward expansion · Civil War · Reconstruction · World War I · Great Depression · World War II · Cold War · Korean War · Civil rights movement · Vietnam War · War on Terrorism By topic Demographic · Industrial · Military · Postal Government     Law Constitution Bill of Rights Separation of powers Enforcement Department of Justice (DoJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Legislature House of Representatives Senate Executive Cabinet Federal agencies Policies Judiciary Supreme Court Appeals Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) National Security Agency (NSA) Military Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Coast Guard Politics Political divisions · Political parties (Democratic · Republican · Other) · Elections (Electoral College) · Ideologies · Scandals · Red states and blue states · Uncle Sam · Political status of Puerto Rico Geography Territory · States · Cities · Counties · Regions (New England · Mid-Atlantic · Southern · Midwest · Great Plains · Northwest · Southwest) · Mountains (Appalachian · Rocky) · Rivers (Mississippi · Missouri · Colorado) · Islands · Extreme points · National Park System · Water supply and sanitation Economy United States dollar · Companies · Wall Street · Federal Reserve · Banking · Insurance · Standard of living (Personal / household income · Income inequality · Homeownership) · Communications · Transportation (Cars · Trucks · Interstates · Highways · Airports · Railroads) · Tourism Society Demographics · Languages (English · Spanish) · People · Religion · Social class (American Dream · Affluence · Middle class · Poverty · Educational attainment · Professional and working class conflict) · Media · Sports · Education · Holidays · Crime · Prisons · Healthcare · Health insurance Culture Music (Classical · Folk · Popular · Jazz) · Television / Film (Hollywood) · Radio · Literature (Folklore · Poetry · Transcendentalism · Harlem Renaissance · Beat Generation) · Visual arts (Abstract expressionism) · Cuisine · Dance · Architecture · Fashion · Flag Issues Abortion · Adolescent sexuality · Affirmative action · American exceptionalism · Anti-Americanism · Capital punishment · Drug policy / Prohibition · Energy policy · Environmentalism · Gun politics · Healthcare reform · Human rights · Immigration (United States–Mexico barrier) · Third Border Initiative · Obesity · Racism · Same-sex marriage · Sexism in the United States Portal