Talk:U.S. Electoral College

Article Checklist for "U.S. Electoral College"

Workgroup category or categories	Politics Workgroup, History Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Russell Potter 12:50, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

This could probably be longer, but I'm marking it as a "developed" article. Feel free to overrule me. --Larry Sanger 19:33, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

"Developed" or not, I've made some significant structural changes, accompanied by some minor rewrites and a big addition of text. I think a little more work would put it close to being ready for approval. Anthony Argyriou 11:52, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Maine and Nebraska

I'd moved the information about Maine and Nebraska to History of selection of electors, and modified the wording somewhat. Since then, Steve Mount has restored the original Maine & Nebraska section. There is a significant disagreement about the date of Nebraska making its change, which needs to be resolved.

I'd suggest: make the Selection of electors section a higher-level section, with history as one subsection and present-day practice as another; the present-day practice subsection will be mostly about Maine & Nebraska and "faithless electors". Some discussion of 1968 would be worthwhile in the history section. A "selection of electors" section may even belong ahead of the general electoral college history, though if that's done, the history of selecting electors should be left in the general history section.

I plan to flesh out the "criticism" section with some arguments made in favor of keeping the EC, but I need to spend some more time digging. Anthony Argyriou 15:53, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about that, I didn't see the moved info about Maine and Nebraska - obviously, the info I added back in should be taken out to avoid duplication. I'll check my source for the date of Nebraka's change (and note it on the page as well, for future reference). Steve Mount 16:02, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I think one possible source of the conflict is that there was a lapse between the legislation being passed and going into effect - it may have missed the deadline to affect the 1992 election. What do you think of the re-arrangements I've proposed? Anthony Argyriou 16:13, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I found what I think is a credible source for the years and added a reference. I think the rearrangements are fine, have at it. Entire books could be written about the topic (and I think have been, I just don't have one!), so my only concern is how much and at what depth should the entry go. Steve Mount 22:47, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Steps for approval?

I think this article is close to being ready for approval, though I'm certain that some expert eyes will find plenty of things which should be improved. So, please have at! In particular:

1. Is there anything important which should be in this article but isn't yet?
2. Is any of the exposition unclear or confusing?
3. Are there any factual errors?
4. Is the overall structure of the article sound?

Please discuss here any big changes before making them. Anthony Argyriou 14:25, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

I have no opinion of approval itself. But I do think the exposition should explain the disproportionality aspect up front and the potential for electing presidents w/minority of popular vote. It should also mention the few elections where the EC really did make a difference, this is crucial. Also, I really can't figure out why you have that para on 1960. What's the point of the para? Aren't there quirks in other elections? Also, it would be good to include or "See Also" a list of the EC votes by state, right? If you designed the table with percentages of population, morevover, it would help get across the disproportionality issue. David Hoffman 14:51, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Impact

David Hoffman has cleanup the intro to this section, but has eliminated a point I wanted to expand on. Various critics (and supporters) of the Electoral College have suggested that some elections would have come out differently in the absence of the EC. However, I've seen it argued that in the absence of the EC, candidates would adjust campaign strategies, so retrospective scoring can't be that accurate. I suppose the larger point is that the structure of the EC affects how presidential campaigns are run, as well as how legitimate the results are perceived. I haven't included that, because I (don't have/am too lazy to look up) the appropriate references. Anthony Argyriou 13:01, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi again. Off the top of my head, it looks like this section address 5 points: (1) is this EC a problem of unjust distribution of representation, (2) is the election of "minority" (is this the technical term in the literature?) vote presidents a flaw or not, (3) does EC depress voter turn-out, (4) does the disproprortion add to national cohesiveness. and (5) does it protect against mass recounts. Sounds like you want to add (6) does it skew campaigning inappropriately and (6) detract from legitimacy (or is that merely a function of #1 or #2?). Plus, (7) it presupposes knowing that EC sometimes leads to a "minority" president.

Where to put all this? (7) is relevant/interesting/undisputed enough to put in the first paragraph of the article. Explain that EC can override popular, as it has in a few [name them] elections. Even before History, you might explain in laymen's terms that EC has a different proportionality than flat popular. (This knowledge is also presupposed in current text.) I would relabel the section maybe "Criticism of" or "Merits of" EC. Why? Some effects/impacts are undisputed (e.g., disproportion, minority prez, avoid recounts), so this kind of section is largely about the merits or weight of various effects.

The next section -- I would suggest subheadings: Abolish the EC, Reallocate EC Votes, Misc Reforms (or Reforms of Electoral Process?). Then, within Abolish, you can put your point above, about how w/o EC it would alter campaign strategies, which is pretty speculative. Logically, this might mean moving the Bonus plan with Maine, while adding that the former requires an amendment. Anyway, this is my guess of how to structure it. David Hoffman 14:40, 16 May 2007 (CDT) P.S. Don't let google spider these ruminations, please!

approval

This article looks good, is it close from being approved yet? (YI?)

Somebody needs to hunt down a politics editor;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:40, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Seemingly they are all inactive. Probably we should wake them up? :-) Yi Zhe Wu 10:09, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like a good idea ;-) Maybe an email.. or a phone call? Did know about this mailing list? According to this, all you have to do is send an email to mailto:cz-politics@mail.citizendium.org - try it... lets see if it works. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:37, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Email sent to that address. Yi Zhe Wu 11:18, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Yi and others: if there are no responses from any of the Politics editors, might I suggest that you consider whether, given the history that it offers and involves, this might be a logical entry to tag for the History workgroup. If so, there are some much more active Editors there at the moment, and you could ask one of them to look at the entry and consider nominating it for Approval. Russell Potter 18:23, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Suggestion

The only thing I want to know after reading this is how the actual electors are chosen. What is the link between the winner of the state-wide vote and the people actually chosen as electors? Also, who are the electors? Usually politicians? Party higher-ups? Business people? Random people? James A. Flippin 22:14, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Good idea. I added some text on this topic and gave a real-world example. Steve Mount 23:24, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I like that quite a bit, especially the real-world example. James A. Flippin 10:31, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

2000?

I was surprised not to see at least a mention of the 2000 Presidential election here -- seems like, as the latest example of a popular-vote winner losing the Electoral College vote, it would be significant to the topic. Russell Potter 18:28, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

There's a sentence, in the "Impact" section, which mentions 2000:

“

The result of this can lead to minority presidents. In 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960 and 2000, presidential candidates with fewer popular votes than their opponent won the electoral vote. In several election years, including 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000, the winner of the electoral vote did not win 50% of the popular vote, though except in 1960 and 2000, the electoral college winner had a plurality of the popular vote.

”

The "Impact" section is one large block as a stylistic decision - Larry has said that we don't need so many subheadings as Wikipedia, and that "Criticism of" sections are generally bad. The "Impact" section sums up the more cogent arguments in each direction without having to figure out subheadings for the issues of disproportionality and minority presidents, and sub-sub-headings for criticism and support for each. Anthony Argyriou 00:25, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Reform proposals

The section on reform, when discussing the California plan, states, "Critics say it is unconstitutional (under Article 1 section 10)" Are there any references to such criticism and what part of section 10 do they argue it violates? A brief survey of the text of the section does not yield any obvious violations. James A. Flippin 12:58, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

I added that on the basis of reading news stories here in Colorado, where the proposal is being discussed in the legislature; i haven't googled them yet -- section 1:10 says that states cannot make agreements without federal approval. (it only works if the states in fact cooperate w each other to act according to the plan, which can be construed as a "compact with another state") Richard Jensen 13:12, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

name change

I suggest we rename this U.S. Electoral College, for consistency with related articles. Richard Jensen 07:57, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good to me. Russell Potter 08:02, 16 June 2007 (CDT)