The Electoral College Flawed Relic or Inspired Wisdom?

What Is It? The system by which we elect our President and Vice-President Constitution—Article II, section 2: “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 ….”

Why? Framers did not want Congress to have power to select President (President would be “dependent”) Framers did not believe citizens capable of making a wise choice: Lack of education Lack of communication Distance and time

Original Intent The Framers intended the Electors to be “free agents” Educated, knowledgeable citizens Exercise independent judgment Each elector would cast 2 votes Most votes—President Second most—Vice-President

The Effect of Political Parties Washington had no political party; he warned against the “divisive effects of faction” (political parties) After Washington, John Adams (Federalist) narrowly defeated Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) President and Vice-President were from different parties! Electors had already declared their allegiance to one or the other Rather than “free agents,” electors were already becoming “rubber-stampers”

Election of 1800—12 th Amendment In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tie in the Electoral College vote House of Representatives casts 36 ballots before electing TJ President. This led to the 12 th Amendment. Electors now cast separate ballots, one for President, one for Vice-President The Electoral College has operated under this basic framework since 1800

The Modern Electoral College Total Electoral Votes Available—538 Each state has a minimum of 3 Consists of: 435 (Total Number of Representatives) 100 (Total Number of Senators) 3 (representing Washington, D.C. under the 23 rd Amendment; equal to those of the least populous state) Majority required--270

How Are Electors Determined? By State law—very important! Most states (48) follow the “winner-take-all” rule. A single-vote margin in the popular vote in such a state delivers all electoral votes to the winner. Two (Nebraska and Maine) follow the “district” plan. Two votes are allocated to the statewide winner. The remainder are awarded based on results in individual congressional districts

How and for Whom Do Electors Vote? Slates of electors are nominated by party processes in each state. Under state law and/or party rules, those electors are obligated to cast their electoral votes for the party’s nominee. They almost always do. “Faithless” electors—158 times, electors have voted for someone other than their pledged nominee Often due to death of nominee, but about half have been due to “disloyalty” Faithless electors who actually vote contrary to their pledge will face censure/punishment from the political party In about half of the states, may also face a state penalty, such as a fine, or have their votes rendered invalid college/laws.html Faithless electors have never affected the result of a presidential election

Problems with the Electoral College Candidate may win the national popular vote, but lose in the Electoral College This happened in 2000, when Al Gore beat George Bush by about 500,000 in the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College (with one abstention) Has happened three other times: 1824 (JQ Adams over Andrew Jackson—HR) 1876 (RB Hayes over Samuel Tilden—”Stolen Election”) 1888 (Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland) 11 other Presidents won only a plurality of the popular vote

Problems with the Electoral College Second major issue: faithless electors Has not affected the result, but in theory, it could Third: proportionality. Wyoming, with 3 EVs, has one for each 165,000 citizens, California, with 55, has one for each 615,000. Some regard this as unfair/undemocratic

Problems with the Electoral College Fourth—absent a majority in the EC, the House decides the Presidency Voting is by State (each has 1) Montana + Wyoming > California! Outcome depends on which party controls more state delegations—may not reflect either popular vote or electoral vote pluralities

Reform Proposals District Plan (Nebraska/Maine) Advantage—eliminates “winner take all” Disadvantages—national popular vote winner may still lose the election; gerrymandering could affect election results

Reform Proposals Proportional Plan—each candidate receives share of electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote in that state Advantage—eliminates “winner-take-all” Disadvantage—still doesn’t completely eliminate possibility that national popular vote winner loses the election; substantially increases chance of election by House of Representatives (minor parties would win EVs) Amendment would likely lower required total from majority of EC to a substantial plurality (perhaps 40%)

Reform Proposals Direct Popular Election—do away with the EC entirely. Winner of the national popular vote wins the Presidency. Advantage—guarantees Presidency to the popular vote winner; requires true “nationwide” campaign Disadvantages—negates the “federal” aspect of the system (EVs representing “states” are gone)

Reform Proposals National Bonus Plan—a “hybrid” approach Winner of national popular vote receives 102 “bonus” EVs on top of the earned share of 538 under present system 321 (of 640) required to win; runoff possible Advantage—very likely to ensure winner of popular vote wins Presidency Disadvantages—seems “arbitrary”; confusing

Reform Proposals National Popular Vote Interstate Compact A large majority of citizens support the concept The only one that would not require a constitutional amendment States enter into a compact that requires the electors from that state to cast their EC votes for the certified winner of the national popular vote This obligation “ripens” (becomes binding) when states representing at least 270 EC votes have joined the NPVIC Advantages—no constitutional amendment required; guarantees winner of popular vote wins presidency Disadvantages—may face challenges as to its constitutionality; elections focus on large urban population centers; voter fraud concerns; negates “federal” aspects of the EC system So far, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii have joined the compact (61 EVs of 270—23%) Pending in many other states More information: