Online Encyclopedia
U.S. Electoral College
The U.S. Electoral College is the electoral college which chooses the President and Vice President of the United States at the conclusion of each Presidential election. The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the U.S. Constitution, and meets every four years with electors from each state. The electoral process was modified in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution also modified the College, allowing electors from the District of Columbia to cast votes for the election of the president.
| Contents |
How it works
Election for President and Vice President of the United States is indirect, for which voting takes place every 4 years in November. Although ballots typically list the names of the Presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia actually choose electors when they vote for President and Vice President. These electors in turn cast the official votes for those two offices. Each state's electors meet in their state capitals in December (on first Monday following the second Wednesday), at which time they cast their electoral votes. The electoral votes are then sealed and sent to the President of the Senate (the current Vice President of the United States), who retains them until the new Congress convenes in January. At that time, the votes are opened and counted in the presence of both houses of Congress. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes for President becomes President, and the candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes for Vice President becomes Vice-President.
If no candidate receives an absolute electoral majority for President, then the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President. In this case, the top three electoral vote getters for President are the candidates for the House of Representatives to select from, and the House votes en-bloc by state for this purpose (that is, one vote per state). If no candidate receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for Vice-President, then the Senate must do the same, with the top two vote getters for that office as candidates. If the House of Representatives has not chosen a winner in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then the Consitution specifies that the new Vice President becomes Acting President until the House selects a President. (If the winner of the Vice Presidental election is not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House would become Acting President until the House selects a President.)
Electors
The number of electors assigned to each state is equal to the total number of Senators (always 2) and Representatives that the state has in Congress, but no federal officer or employee, including Senators and Representatives, may serve as an elector. However, electors may be elected state officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. With the adoption of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, the District of Columbia is treated as a state for purposes of electoral votes, but can in no event choose more electors than the least populous state.
There are currently 538 electoral votes available in each presidential election. Therefore, candidates must receive a majority of 270 electoral votes to become President and Vice President. In theory a candidate could win the election by receiving only 23% of all popular votes, if these were distributed in an ideal way.
In most states, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot at all; instead, a notation on the ballot indicates that voters are selecting the "electors for" followed by the names of the candidates for office. In all but two states, the party that wins the most popular votes selects that state's electors, essentially a winner-take-all. In many states, the electors are legally free to cast their votes for anyone they choose, although in some states to vote for someone other than their pledged candidate is a misdemeanor crime, in others a felony, and in a few it is merely illegal without penalty. In practice, however, electors very rarely vote for a candidate they are not pledged to (as they are chosen by the political parties specifically for voting for that candidate), except as a form of protest vote.
History
Scholars continue to debate the reasons for the adoption of the Electoral College. Some believe it was created to protect small states. Others believe that the Founding Fathers intended to create a system of indirect election whereby the electors would come to a carefully considered decision to nominate a selection of good candidates and then the House of Representatives would again make a careful consideration of the names presented. Others still believe the system of electing the President was given little thought beyond a desire to have George Washington as the first President. Still others hold that it was devised as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress, although initially the electors were selected by the state legislatures and it was not until later that states started holding a popular poll for the Presidential elections to determine how they would cast their votes.
The electoral college may have been implemented to negotiate compromises in cases of a very badly split vote where each state was pushing its own native son. The U.S. presidential primary and the emergence of a two-party system has largely rendered this historical. Others have noted that the Electoral College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, thereby sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.
Regardless of why the system was chosen, the term "electoral college" is not used in the U.S. Constitution, and it wasn't until the early 1800s that it came into general usage as the unofficial 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. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."
Section 1, Article II of the Constitution says, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President.
Originally, each elector voted for two persons. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be President, while the individual who was in second place became Vice President (and did not need the backing of the majority of electors; in theory they could have been elected with the support of as few as two electors if every other elector either cast the sole vote for a candidate, voted for a virtually unanimous choice for President or did not cast their second vote). If no-one received a majority of votes, then the House of Representatives would choose between the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen President would become Vice President. If there was ever a tie for second, then the Senate would choose the Vice President.
The original plan, however, did not forsee the development of political parties. In 1796, for instance, rumours of conspiracies led to somce Federalist electors only using one of their two votes with the result that their Presidential candidate John Adams came in first, but the Democrat-Republican candidate for President Thomas Jefferson came second. Thus, the President and Vice President were from different parties. An even greater problem occurred in 1800, when Democrat-Republicans Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied the vote. It was intended that Jefferson was the Presidential contender, while Burr was the Vice Presidential one. However, electors did not differentiate between the two, nor could they under the system of the time, and all electors supporting them cast one vote for each. (The electors for the Federalists, however, managed to arrange so that one elector voted for the Federalist Presidential candidate but *not* for the Vice Presidential candidate, voting instead for another person altogether, so had they had the most electors this situation would not have arisen.) The election was then thrown into the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Democrat-Republicans' opponents, the Federalists. The House had to vote thirty-five times before Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Thomas Jefferson, who won on the thirty-sixth ballot. Burr became Vice President. For this and numerous other reasons he bore a grudge against Hamilton, whom he later killed in a duel.
To address the problems of the 1796 and 1800 elections, the Twelfth Amendment was passed. It made some minor and major changes to the Constitution. First, electors would no longer cast two ballots for President. Rather, they would cast one vote for President and a separate vote for Vice President. The individual receiving a majority of votes in a particular election would be elected. If no-one received a majority in the Presidential election, then the House of Representatives would choose between the top three, again voting by state. Similarly, the Senate chooses between the top two in the case of the Vice President.
It should be noted that under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, there is no requirement for a state to poll its voters. The state legislature can in theory appoint the electors as it likes, and, until 1860, South Carolina did just this. Furthermore, in 1788 the concept of "democracy" was widely seen as analogous to mob-rule, while the idea of political parties was equally frowned upon, and so the idea of a directly elected head of state would have been anathema to many. The Federalist Papers suggest that it was expected that most Presidents would be selected by the House of Representatives, and the order of the articles of Constitution, in which Congress is established in Article I and the presidency in Article II, supports this view.
There is still no formal requirement for electors to back the ticket and it is possible for one of the elections to produce a clear winner but not the other - in 1824 no candidate had a majority for the Presidency, but John C. Calhoun did for the Vice Presidency, whilst in 1837 Martin Van Buren was elected President, but his running mate was not endorsed by some Democrat electors and so the Senate had to resolve the election.
Supporters of the college
Supporters of the college claim that the system protects rural communities and smaller states from the interests of urban centers and large states. Without the Electoral College, with the vote based on majority rule, it would be possible to win a strict majority of votes located in a few geographically restricted areas of the country. One could campaign and win in only the 10 largest cities in the country. This would allow a candidate to focus resources, time, and political capital in winning the greatest numbers of voters in the cities. It is felt that this pressure would apply to all parties, and lead to voters in the sparsely populated West being completely ignored. Thus, the intent of the college is to favor a candidate whose appeal is more broadly distributed on a geographical basis across the nation. This may lead to the rare circumstance of giving the election to a candidate who did not win a majority of the popular vote, but it's seen as preferable to giving the election to one who is favored by a majority of voters but whose support is concentrated in a minority of regions or only by voters in large states.
An additional reason in favor of the Electoral College is that by having 51 separate elections, corruption in any single state is limited to the electoral votes of that state.
Also, in the event of an extremely close election, as in 2000, having the Electoral College makes doing a recount much easier, since it may only be necessary to recount in a single state, rather than the entire nation.
Detractors of the college
Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equal vote, regardless of which part of the country they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in small states. In contrast, the Electoral College disenfranchises those voters in every state who cast their votes for the candidate receiving fewer votes in that state. And it also partly disenfranchises voters in larger states by reducing their proportional contribution to the final election result.
It is also worth pointing out that the Electoral College assumes that voters within states vote monolithically, when in fact this is not the case. Many states are often deeply divided over how to vote in a Presidential election. A key element of democracy is that voters disagree among themselves on what they consider their interests, and this happens within states as well as between states. Thus, for example, in the 2000 election, New Hampshire (a small state) gave 48% of its votes to Bush, and 47% to Gore. According to the pro-Electoral College model, as a small state, New Hampshire necessarily voted for its own local interests in supporting Bush.This in itself skews the campaign process, as candidates focus their efforts on states whose electoral votes are in question, rather than individual voters whose ballots are in play, and may contribute to broader sectional divisions.
Opponents also argue that the Electoral College tends to favor a two-party system. Even when a third-party candidate receives a significant number of popular votes, he may not receive a majority in any state and may not garner even a single electoral vote, as was the case of Ross Perot in the 1992 elections.
Yet another problem with the electoral college is what would result if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes, basically an election which fails to elect. In several elections of the Twentieth century, 1912, 1948, 1960, and 1968, third party candidates won electoral votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility in a three-way race no candidate would reach the magic 270 number. If no candidate hit 270, the election would go to the House, where, under special election rules, each state delegation would have one vote, no matter its size. If the House election tied, or if enough delegations split evenly, there would be no winner at all.
Most electoral reform plans in the US include ways to abolish the College.
Supporters of an Electoral College with modified rules
Some argue that the biggest problems of the electoral college can be acceptably mitigated by modifying the rules by which votes are allocated. The primary proposal of this type is for states to implement a proportional vote system. Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected to represent only the plurality vote. As an example, consider the 2000 election, in which the George W. Bush / Richard Cheney (Republican) and Albert Gore Jr. / Joseph Lieberman (Democrat) tickets were the primary contenders, with the Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (Green) ticket taking a small but noteworthy minority. In California, the approximate proportion of votes for these tickets was 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Under the current system, all 54 electoral votes were for Gore/Lieberman. Under a simple proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke.
The state of Colorado has an initiative on its November 2004 ballot, Amendment 36, which would institute a system of proportional allocation of electors beginning immediately with the 2004 Colorado electoral college members. If the proposal passes, the constitutiality of such a system may be challenged in court. Had such a system been in place in the 2000 election, only 5 of the state's 8 electors would have gone to Bush. Such a change of three electors from Bush to Gore would have changed the outcome of that election.
A major problem with dividing electoral votes proportionally is that it would be harder for a candidate to achieve a majority of the electoral vote, since a proportional system would enable a third party candidate to win electoral votes. If this system had been used in 1992 and 1996 there would have been no winner at all, and the House of Representatives would have chosen the president. In 1996 Robert Dole would almost certainly have been the House winner as well, despite receiving significantly fewer votes than Bill Clinton. George W. Bush would likewise have still won in 2000.
Other observers argue that the current electoral rules of Maine and Nebraska should be extended nationwide. As previously noted, the winner in those two states is only guaranteed two electoral votes, with the winner of each Congressional district in the state receiving one electoral vote. Using the California example again, Gore won 33 of the state's Congressional districts and the state overall, while Bush won 19 Congressional districts. The state's electoral votes would then have gone 35-19 for Gore. However, this kind of allocation would still make it possible for the loser of the popular vote to become president. if every state used the Maine-Nebraska system, George W. Bush would have won in 2000 by an even larger electoral college majority than he did with winner-take-all. Also, dividing electoral votes by House district winners would create yet another incentive for partisan gerrymandering.
Alternative systems
The Electoral College requires a majority vote in order for a victor to be declared. In the case of a hypothetical direct election with multiple candidates, the question of majority versus plurality comes into play. In many recent American presidential elections (1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000), no single candidate achieved an absolute majority of the popular vote. Some nations with direct Presidential voting, such as France, have a second round of voting if no candidate achieves a majority of votes in the first round; in the second round, the election is restricted to the two candidates with the highest number of votes. Some have argued that the French system creates problems of its own; it is possible that the initial vote becomes divided up between so many candidates that someone who is highly undesirable to most voters can make it to the second round of voting, as occurred in 2002 with the rise of candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen to the runoff election. One solution to this problem would be to implement an alternative election system, such as instant runoff voting, approval voting, or condorcet voting.
Another proposed reform is to make the number of electors that each state has the same as its number of Representatives (effectively the same as the current system, except taking -2 electoral votes from each state). This would weaken the proportionality benefit that small states enjoy. If such a system had been in place in 2000, Al Gore would have won in the Electoral College 225-211.
A popular election could occur without amending the constitution. If a sufficient number of states chose their electors by national popular vote rather than state popular vote, then a national popular vote would occur in practice. For example, the eleven largest states, controlling over 270 electoral votes among them, could guarantee that the presidency always goes to the winner of the national popular vote, merely by changing state election law.
Political probabilities
Despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, it appears that large majorities of Americans favor a direct popular vote. In a 1968 Gallup survey, 81% of Americans favored a direct popular vote, 12% favored retention, and 7% had no opinion. In 1992, pollsters asked Americans this question, "If Perot runs, there is a chance that no presidential candidate will get enough electoral votes to win. If that happens, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to decide who will be the next President. Do you think that is a fair way to choose the President, or should the Constitution be changed?" 31% said it was a fair way, and 61% said the Constitution should be changed.
By some counts, there have been over seven hundred proposed amendments to the Constitution to change, or abolish, the electoral college. In 1989 an amendment to do away with the electoral college passed the House of Representatives with 83% of the vote, 338-70. Predictably, the amendment failed in the Senate, where it only got fifty-four affirmative votes.
Regardless of how opponents of the system feel, it is unlikely that the system will soon be changed. Changing the system requires amending the Constitution, and amending the Constitution requires ratification of three-fourths of the States. Smaller states would be unlikely to ratify such an amendment, as their votes would count for less under direct popular vote than under the current electoral college system.
Also, removing the system would weaken the domination of the two large political parties which control most aspects of politics in the United States, so it would be difficult to imagine either party machine backing such an alteration.
Debate over the merit of the Electoral College came to a head after the 2000 Presidential election, with some politicians, such as Senator Hillary Clinton, calling for a Constitutional amendment abolishing the system. Clinton conceded that the chances of enacting such a change were slim, and the idea has not been vigorously pursued since the 2000 election.
Electoral votes
Electoral votes are determined decennially by the United States Census (see also United States Congressional Apportionment). The electoral vote distributions for the 2004 and 2008 elections are as follows.
Alphabetically
|
Alabama - 9 Alaska - 3 Arizona - 10 Arkansas - 6 California - 55 Colorado - 9 Connecticut - 7 D.C. - 3 Delaware - 3 Florida - 27 Georgia - 15 |
Hawaii - 4 Idaho - 4 Illinois - 21 Indiana - 11 Iowa - 7 Kansas - 6 Kentucky - 8 Louisiana - 9 Maine - 4 Maryland - 10 |
Massachusetts - 12 Michigan - 17 Minnesota - 10 Mississippi - 6 Missouri - 11 Montana - 3 Nebraska - 5 Nevada - 5 New Hampshire - 4 New Jersey - 15 |
New Mexico- 5 New York - 31 North Carolina - 15 North Dakota - 3 Ohio - 20 Oklahoma - 7 Oregon - 7 Pennsylvania - 21 Rhode Island - 4 South Carolina - 8 |
South Dakota - 3 Tennessee - 11 Texas - 34 Utah - 5 Vermont - 3 Virginia - 13 Washington - 11 West Virginia - 5 Wisconsin - 10 Wyoming - 3 |
Numerically
|
California - 55 |
Virginia - 13 |
Alabama - 9 |
Kansas - 6 |
New Hampshire - 4 |
The 2000 election
- Gore had 51,003,926 popular votes
- Bush had 50,456,062 popular votes
- Bush won the electoral vote with 271 votes
- Gore had 266 electoral votes (he originally had 267, but one D.C. elector cast a blank ballot to protest the district's lack of Congressional representation)
- Gore won 42 of the top 50 U.S. metro areas
- Bush won 8 of the top 50 U.S. metro areas
- Gore won 20 states plus the District of Columbia
- Bush won 30 states
See also
- Other electoral colleges.
External links
- Electoral-Vote.comLATimes.com and ElectionProjection.com - Frequently updated visual state-by-state current electoral totals of the current (2004) election based on polling data.
- The Electoral College - by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration
- League of Women Voters - A web page from the League of Women Voters advocating direct election and the abolition of the electoral college
- Math Against Tyranny - an article describing MIT researcher Alan Natapoff's analysis favoring the electoral college system
- Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size - The Neubauer-Zeitlin analysis shows that the winner of the 2000 presidential election was determined in 1941 when the House size was fixed at 435. Had the House size been set at 500, then Gore would have won the 2000 election.
- US presidential electoral system - A mathematical analysis of the US presidential system, showing that this system is biased toward populous states, giving a citizen of California roughly four times more power than one of Montana in the choice of the US president.
- Electoral College Vote Calculator - A tool for determining which combinations of states a candidate can win to become President.