U.S. Electoral College

The Electoral College is the process of choosing the President of the United states and the Vice President of the United states. It comprises electors chosen by each state who meet in December after the presidential election; Congress counts the votes and announces a winner. The Electoral College has existed since the establishment of the Constitution in 1789, with one major change in 1804 to make room for political parties. Each state in the United states is granted a number of electors equal to the total of the number of representatives and senators apportioned to the state. More populous states have more representatives and hence have more electoral votes; however, the addition of two votes per state means that states are represented beyond just their population, which has an important effect for smaller states.

Since 1860 at presidential elections, each state chooses electors by popular vote, the electors of each state vote for president and separately for vice-president, and the votes are transmitted to the President of the Senate. Electors must vote for at least one person not of their own state. In 48 states, the entire slate of electors pledged to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide is elected. In Maine and Nebraska, two of each state's electors are chosen by the state-wide vote (one for each Senator), and the remaining electors are chosen by the vote in each Congressional district.

History of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was devised by the framers of the Constitution as a solution to the problem of selecting a President. Early proposals were to have Congress elect the president, to have the state legislatures elect the president, or to elect the president by popular vote. Congressional election was rejected as being possibly too divisive, too easy to corrupt, and as eroding the separation of powers. state legislative election was rejected as leaving a president beholden to states who might wish to erode national authority. Popular voting was rejected because, at the time, communication between states was not very good, and there would be very few nationally known persons, and thus people would tend to vote for their state's "favorite son", making it difficult to obtain a majority. Further, small states feared that popular vote would allow a combination of large states to dominate the presidency. Eventually, a "Committee of Eleven" proposed that the President should be elected by electors from each state, similar to the way that the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, or the Holy Roman Emperor was elected. The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic.

Original Electoral College

The Electoral College was originally detailed in Article 2 of the Constitution. On a day specified by Congress, electors would meet within their state and cast two ballots for President. The only stipulations, aside from the qualifications for the office, were that at least one of the names had to be from a person not a citizen of the elector's state, and that the names on the ballots must be different. The votes would be collected and sent to the Congress.

The President of the Senate would open all votes in the presence of the members House of Representatives and Senate, and read all of the votes. The person with the highest number of votes, if the number be a majority of the electors, would be elected President. The person with the second-highest number of votes would be elected Vice President.

If two persons exceeded the half-way mark, and had an equal number of votes, the members of the House of Representatives, voting as states and not individuals, would choose between the two names. If no single name exceeded the half-way mark, the top five names would be placed before the House and the House would decide from those five; voting, again, as whole states. The person with the most votes would become President, and the person with the second-most votes would become Vice-President. If there was a tie for second place after the selection of the President, the Senate would choose the Vice-President between these names. Voting in the Senate would be as individuals, not as states.

In the first two Presidential elections, in 1788 and 1792, George Washington was elected President, receiving a vote from every elector, 69 in 1788 and 132 in 1792. John Adams received 34 electoral votes in 1788 and 77 in 1792, and was elected Vice-President. George Clinton of New York received 50 votes in 1792.

Elections of 1796 and 1800

Relatively quickly, problems with this electoral scheme emerged. In the election of 1796, political rivals John Adams and Thomas Jefferson obtained 71 and 68 votes, respectively, in the Electoral College vote. Adams's running mate was Thomas Pinckney, who came in third with 59 votes; Jefferson's running mate was Aaron Burr, who came in fourth with 30 votes. Adams and Jefferson were therefore elected, even though they came from opposing parties. The emergence of the First Party System was an unexpected development, for the nation now had two equally matches parties that operated in each state and presented national tickets.

The crisis came in 1800: Adams and Pinckney were again on the Federalist Party ticket, and Jefferson and Burr on the Republican ticket. This time, however, Jefferson and Burr both got 73 electoral votes, Adams received 64, and Pinckney 63. The tie threw the election to the House. Though Jefferson was the intended presidential candidate, Burr supporters and Adams supporters repeatedly voted to make Burr President, resulting in repeated votes that resulted in ties. Finally Federalist Party leader Alexander Hamilton, alarmed at the prospect of President Burr led Federalists to cast blanck votes which allowed for Jefferson's election.

The 12th Amendment was proposed shortly after the 1800 fiasco was settled.

12th Amendment

The 12th Amendment, adopted in 1804, made a small but critical change that took parties into account. The 12th Amendment begins

“

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,

”

The name with the majority of the votes for President is named President. If there is no majority in the ballots for President, the three highest vote-getters are voted on by the House, voting as states. The winner of that vote is President.

The name with the majority of the votes for Vice President is named Vice President. If there is no majority in the ballots for Vice President, the two highest vote-getters are voted on by the Senate, Senators voting as individuals. The winner of that vote is Vice President.

The 12th Amendment also closed one loophole in the process: the qualifications for Vice President were explicitly made the same as those for President.

In the first election following the ratification of the 12th Amendment, in 1804, Jefferson received 162 votes to 14 for Charles Pinckney for President; George Clinton received 162 votes to 14 for Rufus King for the office of Vice President.

23rd Amendment

In 1961, the 23rd Amendment was ratified. The 23rd grants the national capital electoral votes as if it were a state, though it may not have more votes than the state with the least number of electors. Since ratification of the 23rd Amendment, Washington D.C. has had three electoral votes.

Selection of electors

From the outset, and to this day, the manner of choosing a state's electors was left to each state legislature. Initially different states adopted different methods. Some state legislatures decided to choose the Electors themselves. Others decided on a direct popular vote for Electors either by Congressional district or at large throughout the whole state. Still others devised some combination of these methods. But in all cases, Electors were chosen individually from a single list of all candidates for the position.

During the 1800's, two trends in the states altered and more or less standardized the manner of choosing Electors. The first trend was toward choosing Electors by the direct popular vote of the whole state (rather than by the state legislature or by the popular vote of each Congressional district). By 1836, all states except South Carolina had moved to choosing their Electors by a direct statewide popular vote. South Carolina persisted in choosing them by the state legislature until 1860. Today, all states choose their Electors by direct statewide election except Maine and Nebraska. Maine adopted a system in 1969, in place for the 1972 election, in which two of the electors are chosen by the state-wide vote (one for each Senator), and the remaining electors are chosen by the Congressional district vote. Nebraska adopted the same system in 1992, in time for that year's election. However, since the system has been in place in both states, the result has been the same as "winner-takes-all" because the district-wide voting mirrored the state-wide voting.

Nomination of electors

Prior to a Presidential election, each political party with a candidate on a state's ballot will nominate a list of persons to serve as electors should that party win the state-wide vote. For example, in Vermont, state law mandates that major parties nominate electors at the party platform convention. Minor party candidates may select electors by petition. The party elector lists are sent to the Vermont Secretary of state. After the votes for the presidential are counted, the electors nominated by the winning party are declared the Vermont electors. In California, however, the electors for each party's presidential candidate are nominated by the congressional and senatorial candidates from that party running in the same election; in the absence of a candidate, the state party chairman selects the nominee elector.

The major parties typically choose party loyalists to appear on their list of elector nominees, to avoid problems with faithless electors.

Election of 1960

In the election of 1960, disaffection with the Democratic Party was quite high in some deep South states. Mississippi and Louisiana had three major slates of electors on the ballot: Mississippi had, in addition to a slte of Republican electors, a slate of "loyal" Democrats, pledged to John F. Kennedy and a slate of "free" Democrats, not pledged to vote for their party's nominee. Louisiana's "free Democrats" put a third slate of electors on the ballot, but they were not referred to as Democrats. Alabama had a more complicated system: there was a Democratic party primary to select electors to appear on the ballot in the general election; voters would vote for each of 11 electors individually in the general election. The Democratic Party's primary resulted in a slate of 5 electors pledged to the party nominee (Kennedy) and 6 unpledged electors. In the general election, all 11 Democrat electors in Alabama came ahead of all of Nixon's electors, and the unpledged Democrat slate narrowly beat out the Kennedy slate in Mississippi. All 14 of the unpledged Democrats voted for Senator Harry Bird of West Virginia and Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for President and Vice President. One Republican elector from Oklahoma broke with his party and voted for Senator Byrd for President and Senator Barry Goldwater for Vice President.

Faithless Electors

The term faithless elector is used to denote an elector who does not vote as expected. For example, if candidate A wins the popular vote in a state, that state's electors are expected to place candidate A's name on their presidential ballots.

The Constitution, however, does not dictate any such requirement for electors - it simply notes that states select electors any way they wish, and that electors then vote. Some states have civil penalties for faithless electors, but there is argument about the constitutionality of such laws.

Faithless electors are rare but not unheard of. In 1988, for example, one West Virginia elector cast his presidential ballot for Lloyd Bentsen and his vice presidential ballot for Michael Dukakis, the reverse of every other vote for the Democratic ticket. In 1976, a Washington elector cast his presidential ballot for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford.

Mistakes in voting have also been known to happen. In 2004, one Minnesota elector voted for John Edwards on both the presidential and vice presidential ballots. And from time to time, votes go uncast - the last time was in 2000, when one Washington D.C. elector failed to cast a ballot.

Impact of the Electoral College

The Electoral College, as it generally operates, serves to magnify the margin of victory in presidential elections. The focus on winning states, rather than overall popular vote, affects the political strategies of presidential candidates.

Since most states vote their electors on a "winner-take-all" basis, it is possible for the electoral college winner to not have a majority of the popular vote+. 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.

states, because of their equal representation in the Senate and minimum number of Representatives, have an unequal representation in the Electoral College. Though the difference is minuscule on a per capita basis, it adds up when looking at millions of persons.

For example, Wyoming is the smallest state in terms of population, with 493,782 persons as of the 2000 census, and three electoral votes. This gives each person in Wyoming 0.000006075 electoral votes per person (or 164,594 persons per electoral vote). California, by contrast, had 33,871,648 persons as of the 2000 census, and 55 electoral votes. This gives each person in California 0.000001623 electoral votes (or 615,848.15 persons per electoral vote), about 26% of the "vote power" than each person in Wyoming.

While the Electoral College serves a pivotal function in U.S. presidential elections, at least formally, supporters and critics of the Electoral College disagree about its practical impact relative to the popular vote.

Critics of the Electoral College make two major criticisms of the Electoral College today: the College's disproportionate rates of representation, and the occasional election of a minority president. Additionally, critics believe that the electoral college may depress voter turnout, and worry that faithless electors could swing the results of an election.

Critics argue that electing a minority president is a flaw of the Electoral College system, as is the disproportionate vote power of people in smaller states. In a democracy, critics argue, every person's vote ought to have the same weight, and the Electoral College violates that principle. Supporters say that republicanism is mandated by the Constitution, not democracy, and that the the large-state/small-state issue was a compromise agreed to by every state in 1788 and one essential to having a Constitution in the first place.

Best (2004) gives six goals of the system for presidential elections: selection of a president with broadly distributed popular support, a swift and decisive selection of the winner, preservation of the moderate two-party system, politically effective representation that include minority views, preservation of the separation of powers, and preservation of the federal principle. Best argues that only the existing system satisfies all of these requirements. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without such a mechanism, they point out, presidents would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. In the absence of the Electoral College, presidential candidates would focus almost entirely on large states to the exclusion of smaller states, while at present, they focus more on states where the result is less certain, and the disproportionate voting power of the small states ensures that candidates take into account the political values and concerns of small states as well as large.

The argument that the electoral college depresses turnout is hypothetical and not based on empirical data. It is that, since each state is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the states to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation (possibly by particular groups) so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole state. It is also possible that voters in states where the outcome is not in doubt are less likely to vote than are voters in swing states, both because the voter feels his vote will count for less and because the national campaign organizations are likely to focus their voter turnout operations on swing states.

Supporters of the electoral college argue that by partitioning votes by state, the uncertainty and instability caused by recounts in extremely close races (such as in 2000) are limited in scope to one or two states, rather than causing national recounts.

Hill and McKee (2005) take a two-stage approach to examining the impact of the electoral college on turnout in the 2000 election. First they looked at whether battleground states received more party resources in terms of media spending and visits by the candidates compared to non-battleground states. Second, they examine whether media spending and candidate visits were related to state-level turnout. The battleground states did receive significantly more media expenditures and candidate visits from the two major party campaigns than non-battleground states. Furthermore, when controlling for state-level contextual and political factors, the more media expenditures and candidate visits a state received the higher the state turnout. Finally, the analysis reveals that state battleground status indirectly impacted state-level turnout through its effect on media spending and candidate visits.

Reform proposals

Many proposals for Electoral College reform have been proposed since the last substantial change in the 12th Amendment. Some proposals would require constitutional amendments, while others could be adopted on a state-by-state basis. Most face significant political challenges to adoption. Panagopoulos (2004) reports that public opinion polls conducted between 1948 and 2002 show considerable support for electoral reform. Support was found for the abolition of the Electoral College, for changes to the way presidential candidates are nominated, and for alterations to campaign funding and procedures. There was also support for alterations in voting procedures.

Burgh (2004) seeks to understand why attempts to reform the unpopular and heavily criticized Electoral College repeatedly fail. He argues that national electoral structures contribute to such amendment efforts by establishing incentives for pursing and deterrents for stopping reform. Burgh posits that the state of the electoral landscape constrains participants' arguments over amending the national electoral system. These structures include the distribution of electoral votes among states, the intensity of two-party competition, and pattern of pivotal politics. These arrangements change over time in response to various factors from population shifts to civil rights laws, presenting new reasons for and against altering the electoral process. Burgh looked at proposals debated in Congress from 1948 to 1979, focusing on appeals to these features of the electoral landscape. Only twice during the twentieth century did the House or Senate approve an amendment to the system; once in 1950 for proportional distribution of electoral votes and in once in 1969 for direct election.

Proposals regarding allocation of electoral votes

These proposals affect how the states allocate electoral votes, and would not change the constitutional nature of the Electoral College. Some proponents may advocate constitutional change or federal legislation to implement these ideas, but all that is necessary is state action.

Maine Plan

The Maine Plan is the arrangement for distribution of electoral votes used by Maine and Nebraska, where the plurality vote winner in each congressional district is allocated one elector, and the overall statewide plurality winner is allocated the two remaining votes. This proposal dilutes the influence of most states, as the number of Electoral College votes in contention is less the number in contention under a winner-take-all system. In states with strong majorities for one party, this proposal guarantees the other party a significant number of electoral votes. The organization Fairvote contends that this plan would have resulted in a Bush victory by 44 electoral votes in the 2000 election.

A variation of the Maine Plan was proposed in Colorado in 2004, which would apportion all a state's electoral votes in proportion to the votes gained by each candidate. Aside from the mathematical issues of apportioning votes, especially if three or more candidates are likely to receive sufficient votes to obtain at least one elector, this plan has similar political side-effects to the Maine Plan.

Majority National Vote

A proposal put forth in California in 2006 and under active consideration in other Democratic Party-controlled legislatures such as Maryland and Colorado in 2007, calls for a state that adopts the plan to give all its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how the people of that state vote. The scheme would go into effect when enough states to comprise a majority of the Electoral College have ratified, and relies on the cooperation of thos states. Critics say it is unconstitutional (under Article 1 section 10 which prohibits any "compact" among states unless approved by Congress). The California bill was vetoed by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In Colorado the bill passed the state senate but not the house.

Proposals requiring Constitutional amendment

The most popular reform proposals are to simply abolish the Electoral College, and elect the president on the basis of a national popular vote. A constitutional amendment is needed. Such proposals differ in their details: some would elect the plurality winner of the popular vote, while others would require a minimum threshold to avoid a run-off (usually a 50%, or absolute majority threshold).

Turner (2005) shows that after the 2000 presidential election, 21 states considered legislation to award their presidential electors using the district system, wherein one elector is awarded to the popular vote winner of each congressional district and the two state electors are awarded to the popular vote winner statewide. Historically, the district system is viewed as the politically feasible alternative to direct elections because it removes the distortions of the winner-take-all system and can be enacted by state law rather than constitutional amendment. However, the ultimate desirability of the district system lies in how it would change the conduct of presidential campaigns, not the counting of electoral college votes. Under the district system, presidential campaigns would shift their priorities from battleground states to battleground districts. The complexity and uncertainty in targeting these districts would force candidates to contest a larger and more geographically diverse percentage of the population than the system as it stood in 2004. Moreover, the changes in presidential campaigns would increase the likelihood of presidential coattails and the prospects for unified government by increasing the competitiveness of congressional elections in swing presidential districts. Finally, the district system has a conservative bias because the swing battleground districts favor Republican presidential candidates and have fewer minority residents and recipients of public assistance than the nation as a whole.

Some special interest organizations supporting abolition of the Electoral College also advocate instituting Instant Runoff Voting. Ostensibly the goal is to save a little money by eliminating a second round of voting. The actual goal is to give leverage to third parties who would bargain away their "second round" votes with a major party in return for policy positions in the major party platform.

Additional proposals have included keeping the existing Electoral College, but changing the system by which elections are resolved if no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, or, separately, legally binding electors or eliminating electors while maintaining the vote counts produced by the Electoral College method.

The National Bonus Plan was proposed by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and calls for additional electoral votes to be given to the popular vote winner. Schlesinger's plan would allocate an additional 102 electors to the popular vote winner, two for each state plus the District of Columbia, though this number could be increased or decreased.

Bibliography

• Best, Judith A. "Presidential Selection: Complex Problems and Simple Solutions." Political Science Quarterly 2004 119(1): 39-59. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: in Ebsco
• Bugh, Gary Edward. "The Electoral Landscape and Institutional Reform: Exploring Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System, 1948-1979." PhD dissertation State U. of New York, Albany 2004. 314 pp. DAI 2004 65(3): 1093-A. DA3125966
• Dahl, Robert A. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? Yale University Press, 2001
• Edwards, George C., III. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. Yale U. Press, 2004. 198 pp.
• Hill, David and Seth C. Mckee, "The Electoral College, Mobilization, and Turnout in the 2000 Presidential Election." American Politics Research 2005 33(5): 700-725. Issn: 1532-673x
• Issacharoff, Samuel. "Law, Rules, and Presidential Selection." Political Science Quarterly 2005 120(1): 113-129. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: Ebsco
• Issacharoff, Samuel. "The Enabling Role of Democratic Constitutionalism: Fixed Rules and Some Implications for Contested Presidential Selection," Texas Law Review 2003 Vol. 81, pp 1861-1893
• Levinson, Sanford, Daniel Lowenstein, and John McGinnis. "Debate: Should We Dispense with the Electoral College?" University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2007) online edition
• Panagopoulos, Costas. "Electoral Reform." Public Opinion Quarterly 2004 68(4): 623-640. Issn: 0033-362x Fulltext: in Ebsco
• Rakove, Jack N. "Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies." Political Science Quarterly 2004 119(1): 21-37. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: in Ebsco; critical of Best (2004)
• Schelsinger, Jr., Arthur. "How to Reform the Electoral College," New Perspectives Quarterly v18 (Winter 2001) online version
• Stewart, Warren. "California First to Pass Legislation to Establish National Popular Vote," VoteTrustUSA (September 01, 2006) online edition
• Turner, Robert C. Do Nebraska and Maine Have the Right Idea? The Political and Partisan Implications of the District System. Presidential Studies Quarterly 2005 35(1): 116-137. Issn: 0360-4918