Source: Issues & Controversies Issue Date: February 15, 2005 The Electoral College Since ICOF last covered the electoral college on December 15, 2000, the idea of abolishing the Electoral College was raised again after Texas Governor George W. Bush (R, Texas) became the first presidential candidate to lose the popular vote but win in the electoral college since 1888. In Colorado voters rejected a plan to change the state's method of assigning Electoral College votes. Click here for the latest developments concerning this controversial issue. Early History of the Electoral College The Role of Electors A History of Electoral Chaos Critics Claim Democracy Tarnished' Electoral College Supported Future Remains Unclear Bibliography Additional Sources Contact Information Keywords and Points Electoral College Update Unlike some other democratic nations, the U.S. does not hold direct elections for president. Instead, for more than 200 years the U.S. has elected its presidents indirectly, through the electoral college. That system, however, has come under increased scrutiny. More than 100 million people voted in the 2000 presidential election, yet, technically, no one voted directly for president. When voters cast a ballot for a presidential candidate, they are in reality voting for a slate of "electors" who have pledged their support for that candidate. The electors pledged to the candidate who receives the most votes in a particular state get to represent that state in the electoral college. In December of an election year, the winning electors meet in their respective state capitals to vote for the president and vice president. Those electors--who collectively make up the electoral college--are in fact the only people who vote directly for the president. The number of electors a state sends to the electoral college is equal to the total of that state's U.S. Senators--always two--and its representatives in the House, which is based on population. The electoral college currently has 538 members, equal to the nation's total number of senators (100) and House members (435), plus three electoral votes for Washington, D.C., which has no representation in Congress. The candidate who receives the majority of electoral votes nationally (at least 270) is elected president. AP/Wide World Photos Students at Brown University in Providence, R.I., call for the elimination of the electoral college following the close presidential race in November 2000. For years, analysts have debated whether the electoral college is the best method for electing the president. Critics complain that under the present system a presidential candidate could receive the most votes nationwide and still lose the election. Indeed, that scenario has occurred in three previous presidential elections, and may occur again in 2000.
In the presidential election in November, Vice President Al Gore (D) received the greatest number of popular votes (votes for his electors) across the country. However, those votes do not guarantee him the presidency. If his opponent, Gov. George W. Bush (R, Texas), proves to have won more votes in the state of Florida, where the vote totals have been contested, he will win Florida's electoral votes. Those votes would give Bush a majority within the electoral college, and he would become president. In the weeks following the 2000 election, many policy makers vowed to eliminate the electoral college system. Such efforts, however, are not entirely new. Indeed, Congress has considered proposals to abolish or reform the electoral college more than 700 times. Critics of the electoral college lament that it can prevent the winner of the national popular vote from being elected president. The current system unfairly favors states with smaller populations, critics say, by allocating electoral votes according to a state's representation in Congress. As a result, the electoral college enables a candidate to win the presidency by scoring victories in many small states, without earning the most votes nationwide. Presidential election results should be based exclusively on the national popular vote, opponents of the electoral college say. Jeremy Eagle Yet many analysts defend the electoral college. Although it has its flaws, the electoral college remains the best possible method for electing the president, they argue. By distributing votes on a state-by-state basis, the electoral college requires candidates to seek support throughout the country, not just in heavily populated areas, proponents say. They point out that the electoral college has added to the nation's stability by allowing a two-party system to prevail for the past two centuries, and should not be rashly discarded in the aftermath of an unusually close election. Would a national popular vote be a fairer method for electing the president? Should the electoral college be abolished? Or is the current system worth keeping? Early History of the Electoral College
When the Constitution was written in 1787, several obstacles hindered the task of electing a president. For example, voters could not distinguish between candidates based on party affiliation, since political parties did not yet exist. Also, candidates would not be able to conduct informative national campaigns, since transportation and communication between the states was severely limited. Under those circumstances, voters would have difficulty making an informed decision. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the "framers" of the Constitution--55 delegates from all of the 13 original states except Rhode Island--considered three main proposals for electing the president. Each proposal was deemed inadequate. The three proposals were: A congressional vote. The framers believed that Congress would be best equipped to make an informed choice. However, they feared that a president chosen by Congress would be beholden to his congressional supporters. A vote by the state legislatures. This proposal was dismissed due to fears that the president would depend too heavily on support from the states. A national popular vote. The framers rejected this because they doubted that the public would be familiar with candidates from states around the country. Without national campaigns, citizens would lack sufficient information about candidates from other states and would likely support a local candidate, or "favorite son," they feared. With the framers at a stalemate, a "Committee of Eleven" was established to recommend a solution. That committee suggested indirect presidential elections, through a so-called College of Electors. Under this system, each state would select its most knowledgeable citizens to represent its interests during presidential elections. The framers believed that presidential candidates would not actively seek office, but that the electors would simply choose the best man for the job. By 1796, however, political parties had begun nominating candidates through a party caucus, and today candidates are chosen using primaries. [See 2000 Presidential Primaries] With the electoral college system, the framers aimed to overcome a wide array of concerns about presidential elections. Under the original design of the electoral college: The electors would not gather in one place to vote. Instead, they would meet in their respective state capitals, and the results of their votes would be transmitted to Congress for counting. The framers thought that this arrangement would prevent secret dealing between states or among electors. Electors were to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone who was not from their state. The framers saw this as a solution to the "favorite son" problem, believing that the best national candidate would likely be every elector's second choice. The person receiving the most electoral votes, provided it was an absolute majority (more than half of all votes cast) would be elected president. The person receiving the second-most votes would be vice president. If no one received a majority, the state delegations in the House would select from among the five candidates who received the most electoral votes. A majority of states would then be needed to elect a president. The Role of Electors More than 200 years after it was first created, the electoral college system continues to govern the way presidents are elected. Yet the role that electors play in presidential elections has changed dramatically over time. The Constitution grants the state legislatures the responsibility for choosing electors. By the early 19th century, however, some states began conducting elections for the electoral college, allowing voters to choose the state's electors. Since 1860, every state has chosen its electors through a statewide election. As statewide presidential elections were becoming more popular, voters and electors were becoming increasingly loyal to political parties, which emerged in the late 18th century. Indeed, many electors pledged to vote for candidates from a particular political party. Eventually, the political parties began nominating entire "slates" of electors for each presidential election. If a state had eight electoral votes, for example, each party would nominate eight candidates for the electoral college, so that voters wanting to elect that party's presidential candidate would know which candidates to support. Over time states began listing the presidential candidates instead of the electors. A ballot cast for a particular presidential candidate, however, remains in actuality a vote for the slate of electors who have pledged support to that candidate. Although the Constitution does not require electors to honor their pledge, political parties threaten penalties for so-called faithless electors who break it. Furthermore, 26 states prohibit electors from disregarding their pledge. In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled in Ray v. Blair that electors could be required to pledge loyalty to a particular party or candidate. But the constitutionality of punishment for breaking that pledge has never been tested. "There is considerable legal disagreement as to whether the states can really bind people that way," says Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
In 48 states, presidential elections are "winner-take-all," in which the winning candidate's electors receive all of the state's electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, however, the winner of the statewide election receives only two electoral votes, and the other electoral votes are allocated proportionally, using the popular vote totals from each congressional district. A History of Electoral Chaos Although the 2000 election refocused attention on the electoral college, the system has come under attack on previous occasions. Indeed, several close presidential elections have triggered criticism of the electoral college. In some cases, those events prompted important changes in the way that presidential elections are conducted. In 1800, for example, a key new element in U.S. politics--political parties--wreaked havoc on that year's presidential election. Electors supporting the Democratic-Republican Party allocated their two ballots in the electoral college equally to the party's two nominees, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House was forced to break the tie, and selected Jefferson as president. Burr became vice president. In order to update the electoral college to reflect the emergence of political parties, Congress and the states passed the 12th Amendment in 1804. Under that amendment, each elector now casts one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president. Electors are still prevented from allocating both their presidential and vice presidential ballots to someone from their own state. The 12th Amendment also altered the method for resolving elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. In such a scenario, the state delegations in the House choose from among the top three contenders, and the Senate from among the top two vice presidential candidates. Despite those changes, the electoral college continued to be controversial. In 1824, the Democratic-Republican Party's caucus could not settle on any of its four presidential candidates: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and William Crawford. Due to the individual popularity of those candidates, none of them received a majority in the electoral college, sending the decision to the House, which chose Adams. The 1824 election was the first in which most states chose electors through a statewide election, and many analysts cite it as the first election in which the electoral college cost the popular-vote winner the presidency. Although Jackson received the highest totals in both the national popular vote and the electoral college, Adams won in the House. Supporters of the electoral college faced another hurdle in 1876, when political turmoil following the Civil War (1861-65) led to a hotly contested presidential election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford Hayes. The close election ultimately came down to three states where a clear winner could not be determined: South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. Tilden needed the electoral votes from only one of those states to win, while Hayes needed a victory in all three. When the three states were unable to establish conclusive election results, Congress assigned a special 15-person commission to resolve the dispute. Although Tilden received the highest total in the popular vote, the commission chose Hayes as president. (It is widely speculated that Hayes was elected only after secretly promising Democrats that he would end federal occupation of the South, which had been in effect since the war.) In order to avoid future conflicts, in 1887 Congress passed the Electoral Count Act, which gives states the authority to resolve electoral disputes. However, the statute also enables Congress to contest a state's electoral votes. Under the act, an electoral vote can be challenged if at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate file an objection. If a majority in both chambers agrees with that objection, the electoral vote can be discarded. The electoral college was tested once again in 1888. In that year's election, Benjamin Harrison (R) received a majority in the electoral college even though his opponent, incumbent president Grover Cleveland (D), received a larger share of the popular vote. However, few observers at the time questioned the election results, and Harrison took office without controversy. Critics Claim Democracy Tarnished' Critics of the electoral college claim that it tarnishes democracy by undermining the will of the people. When the electoral college nullifies the popular vote, they contend, democracy suffers. "There's no justification for the electoral college--none," says George Edwards 3rd, director of the Center for Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University in College Station. "For someone--no matter who wins the popular vote--to quite legally take the presidency, entirely contrary to democratic principles, is very hard to justify." Furthermore, the electoral college overrepresents less-populous states, critics say, giving voters in those states an unfair advantage. Under the present system, the two electoral votes that all states receive for their senators give less-populous states more electoral votes per person than larger states.
For example, Wyoming--with more senators (two) than U.S. representatives (one)--has three electoral votes and approximately 210,000 voters, or one electoral vote for every 70,000 voters. California, on the other hand, has 54 electoral votes and 10,000,000 voters, or one electoral vote for every 185,000 voters. Clearly, analysts say, a vote in a heavily populated state like California has less impact than a vote in the less-populous Wyoming. As a result, critics argue, the electoral college undermines a key democratic value--the notion that every citizen's vote is equally important. Voters in small states clearly have more power than do voters in larger states, analysts say. "The principle of one man, one vote, is not precisely reflected," says Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa). The disproportionate electoral strength of the less-populous states enables a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote, analysts say. By collecting wins in less-populous states, a candidate can secure enough electoral votes to overcome losses in the larger states. In 2000, for example, Bush was able to compensate for his loss in the popular vote by winning in two-thirds of the states with fewer then 10 electoral votes. "Every other office in the United States is elected on the basis of the person who gets the most votes," says Neil Peirce, author of The Electoral College Primer 2000. "But the electoral college, for reasons no one can ever explain to you logically, values some votes over other votes." By requiring presidential elections to take place on a state-by-state basis, the electoral college always leaves some states out of the process, critics say. Since most states assign all of their electors to the winner of the statewide vote, candidates rarely campaign in states where one candidate has a clear edge, they claim. For example, in 2000 Bush and Gore rarely campaigned in states where one of them was expected to win easily, such as Texas (Bush's home state) or New York (which traditionally votes Democratic). Only so-called swing states--states in which the presidential election is expected to be close--attract the attention of candidates, analysts say. Under the current system, says Sen. Dick Durbin (D, Ill.), "if a state is not in play, it doesn't make any difference." Also, because voters have come to expect electors to abide by their pledge, faithless electors pose a dangerous threat to democracy, critics argue. When electors disobey their pledge, they betray voter confidence. During contentious elections, such as in 2000, a handful of faithless electors could sway the election and trigger a national crisis, analysts say. "Historically, there have been delegates who don't vote the party line," says Cain. "It is very infrequent because there is great pressure to tow the party line. But we've never been in a situation quite like this before." Critics also claim that the electoral college has grown obsolete, despite efforts to update it over the past 200 years. In 1787, the U.S. needed electors because most citizens were unable to make an informed decision. Yet in 2000, electors serve merely as intermediaries between voters and presidential candidates, analysts say. "The old days of having an elite group of people decide who is president is passé," says Durbin, who supports a constitutional amendment eliminating the electoral college. "The people know who the candidates are, they know what they stand for." Although some observers call for less far-reaching reforms of the electoral college, many critics advocate a constitutional amendment abolishing it. The U.S. should elect its presidents through a direct popular vote, they argue. "People want a chance to feel that they've elected the president," says Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, an electoral reform advocacy group based in Takoma Park, Md. [See 2000 Alternatives to the Electoral College Considered (sidebar)] In the weeks following the 2000 election, many U.S. citizens also expressed support for the elimination of the electoral college. In fact, a series of November 2000 public opinion polls found that a majority of Americans prefer a direct popular vote for the presidency. An ABC News/Washington Post poll, for example, found that 63% of Americans support a switch to a popular vote, compared with only 31% who oppose such a change. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll and a CBS News/New York Times poll also found at least 60% support for a direct popular vote, and less than 40% support for keeping the current system. Electoral College Supported Despite increasing calls to eliminate the electoral college, many policy makers continue to support the present system. The electoral college may not be perfect, supporters acknowledge, but it remains preferable to choosing the president through a national popular vote. The electoral college is an important part of the U.S.'s unique federalist system, supporters say, and ought to be preserved. By requiring each state to hold its own presidential election, the electoral college upholds the significant American political tradition of honoring states' rights, advocates say. Every state has distinct political and cultural qualities, which would be diminished by the use of the national popular vote, they argue. "This is not the federal republic of America. It is the United States of America," says Sen. Robert Torricelli (D, N.J.). "Our sense of union, and everyone's inclusion, has now been based on the electoral college." Furthermore, presidential candidates would ignore states with small populations if not for the electoral college, its supporters argue. Under the current system, candidates campaign in whichever states the election results are
expected to be closest. Under a national popular vote, critics say, candidates would focus their attention on capturing areas with the most people, and thus the most votes. "If we did away with the electoral college, an awful lot of states would never get a visit from a presidential candidate," says Sen. Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.). The electoral college adds to the nation's stability by ensuring that presidents have support from different parts of the country, some analysts say. In order to win a majority in the electoral college, a presidential candidate cannot depend on immense popularity in only one region of the country, but must build support across the nation, they claim. The electoral college "forces candidates to campaign across a geographically broad set of states," says Michael Malbin, a political scientist at the State University of New York in Albany. "That's useful for a person who's going to be president." In fact, supporters point out that the electoral college ensures that the candidate with the broadest coalition of support wins the presidency. The electoral vote differs from the national popular vote only in cases where the election is unusually close, analysts say. On those rare occasions, the electoral college guarantees that the presidency goes to the candidate who has a more balanced base of support. Proponents argue that the electoral college also enhances the status of minority groups who might otherwise be ignored. Certain minority groups, such as Cuban-Americans in Florida or the Jewish population in New York, make up a much larger proportion of a state's population than they do the national population. As a result, those groups can have a decisive impact on a statewide presidential election without having a similar effect on the national popular vote totals. Presidential candidates are then forced to pay heed to those groups. "[The electoral college] requires people to have different kinds of constituencies," says Malbin. Lastly, the electoral college further maintains the nation's stability by requiring that the two major political parties act in moderation, supporters say. In order to succeed under the present system, candidates must seek compromises and build bipartisan coalitions, preventing the country from undergoing radical change. Rather than splintering the nation into various factions, minor parties must work with the major parties to enact their preferred policies, maintaining the nation's political balance. Supporters say that without the electoral college, the two-party system would collapse, creating political chaos. The electoral college maintains the two-party system by allocating electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. As a result, under the current system a third-party candidate can receive 25% of the popular vote and still fail to win any electoral votes. Yet under a direct popular vote system, minor political parties could splinter the country, preventing any candidate from receiving a national majority of the vote, analysts say. In order to win, candidates would be forced to pander for support from the minor parties, turning American politics into a never-ending auction for power, critics say. Future Remains Unclear Despite strong support for direct election of the president, a number of hurdles impede change. Most importantly, many analysts say, a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college would be difficult to enact. The Constitution is rarely amended, because amendments require overwhelming support--only 17 have been passed in the last 200 years, and only one has been passed in the last 25 years. A constitutional amendment must either be approved by a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, or it must be called for by two-thirds of the states. Furthermore, at least 38 states (three-fourths) must ratify it. [See 2000 Constitutional Amendments] The less-populous states, which benefit from the electoral college, are unlikely to support any amendment that eliminates it, observers argue. Indeed, the 17 states with five or fewer electoral votes would undoubtedly reject any efforts to abolish the electoral college, they say. "I happen to think [the electoral college] may help the smaller states," says Sen. Tom Daschle (D, S.D.). "South Dakota isn't the biggest state in the country, and we're going to look at those three electoral votes with some degree of concern if we lose it." Furthermore, even if the electoral college could be eliminated, many analysts argue that direct election of the president would simply raise new questions. For example, if no candidate earns a majority of the popular vote, which could occur with a strong third-party candidate in the race, should there be a run-off election (a second round of voting)? Run-off elections would be costly. In addition, presidents lacking support from at least half the population would undoubtedly have difficulty leading the nation, analysts say. Many observers say that the 2000 election revealed an unintended benefit of the electoral college: in close elections, contested results and recounts are restricted to individual states, and do not involve the entire nation. The post-election controversy has focused on Florida, analysts say, because in an election that was close nationwide, only Florida's disputed electoral votes could sway the election to one candidate or the other. Without the electoral college, candidates would demand recounts across the country. "If we don't have an electoral college, you'd be recounting every precinct in each U.S. state," says Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D, N.Y.), a proponent of the current system. "It would go on for months, maybe years." The electoral college may be flawed, supporters say, but its flaws do not warrant change. They argue that the demand for direct election of the president is an impulsive response to the unusually close 2000 election. Close elections will
always be messy, they argue, regardless of the system. "This election showed the electoral college worked--at least as well as the popular vote," says Gary Glenn, a political scientist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "No system can solve the problem of the people not making a clear choice." Bibliography Anderson, Curt. "Recount Renews Effort to End Electoral College; Election Snag has Many Discounting Constitutional Process." Detroit News (November 10, 2000): 6. Cauchon, Dennis. "Lawmakers Move to End Use of Electors." USA Today (November 10, 2000): 4A. Delahunt, William. "It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College." Boston Globe (November 10, 2000): A27. Gledhill, Lynda; Taylor, Michael. "Tight Race May Test Loyalties in Electoral College." San Francisco Chronicle (November 9, 2000): A14. Kale, Clayton. "Durbin Will Propose Amendment to Eliminate Electoral College." St. Louis Post-Dispatch (November 2, 2000): A7. Lipton, Eric. "Problems Stir Calls to End '19th Century' Voting Process." New York Times (November 13, 2000): 25. Milligan, Susan. "Pressure for Resolution Grows: Electoral College under Fire." Boston Globe (November 11, 2000): A1. Toner, Robin. "Election Quandary Prompts Pop Civics Test." New York Times (November 9, 2000): 8. Wildavsky, Ben. "School of Hard Knocks." U.S. News & World Report (November 20, 2000): 52. Will, George. "The Framers' Electoral Wisdom." Washington Post (November 2, 2000): A29. Additional Sources Additional information about the electoral college can be found in the following sources: Best, Judith. The Case against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975. Longley, Lawrence; Peirce, Neal. The Electoral College Primer 2000. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. Contact Information Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of the electoral college or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below: National Archives and Records Administration 700 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20408 Telephone: (800) 234-8861 Internet: www.nara.gov Center for Voting and Democracy 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 901 Takoma Park, Md. 20912 Telephone: (301) 270-4616 Internet: open.igc.org/cvd Center for Presidential Studies The George Bush School of Government and Public Service Texas A&M University 4349 TAMU College Station, Texas 77843-4349 Telephone: (979) 845-9764 Internet: www-bushschool. tamu.edu/cps Keywords and Points For further information about the ongoing debate over the electoral college, search for the following words and terms in electronic databases and other publications: 23rd Amendment Ray v. Blair
Faithless electors Constitutional Convention Automatic Plan Electoral College Update Since ICOF last covered the electoral college on December 15, 2000, the idea of abolishing the Electoral College was raised again after Texas Governor George W. Bush (R, Texas) became the first presidential candidate to lose the popular vote but win in the electoral college since 1888. In Colorado voters rejected a plan to change the state's method of assigning Electoral College votes. Among the key events: Election reform was a lively topic after the 2000 presidential election, but most efforts were directed at reforming the various systems used to tally votes. However, on January 19, 2001, about 200 liberal activists and political analysts held a forum on electoral reform, sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies and other think tanks, in which they debated proportional representation in awarding a state's electoral votes and the abolition of the electoral college. They acknowledged, however, that such measures were unlikely to win Republican support. On January 24, Bush and congressional leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties agreed to cooperate on an effort to reform the country's election procedures. [See 2001 Facts On File: Politics--Bush, Congress Act on Election Reform; Other Developments.] The idea of assigning a state's electors proportionally was put on the ballot in Colorado in the presidential election of November 2, 2004. If approved, the proposal, known as Amendment 36, would have applied to the results of the 2004 presidential election and would have divided Colorado's nine electoral votes based on candidates' popular-vote percentages in the state. Voters rejected the proposition by a margin of nearly 2-1, which meant that the existing winner-take-all system remained in place. At the time, Maine and Nebraska were the only states that did not award their electoral votes on the principle of winner-takes-all. Both states gave two electoral votes to the statewide winner and allocated the rest based on who won in each congressional district. One of the main backers of the Colorado initiative was Rick Ridder, a Denver-based political consultant who had been the campaign manager for former Vermont Governor Howard Dean's failed bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Colorado Governor Bill Owens (R) led a Republican campaign against the measure. Backers of the defeated initiative, however, insisted that their effort was only the beginning of a national debate on the electoral college and that the reform movement would continue. [See 2004 Facts On File: 2004 Elections--Colorado Electoral-Vote Plan Challenged, 2004 Election--Ballot Propositions--Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives Approved.] Modern Language Association (MLA) Citation: "The Electoral College." Issues & Controversies On File 15 Feb. 2005. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 15 Oct. 2008 <http://www.2facts.com>. American Psychological Association (APA) Citation format: The title of the article. (Year, Month Day). Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved Month Day, Year, from Issues & Controversies database. See the American Psychological Association (APA) Style Citations for more information on citing in APA style. Record URL: http://www.2facts.com/recordurl.asp?article=/icof/search/i0502790.asp Copyright 2008 Facts On File news Service. All Rights Reserved.