The Presidential Election The Electoral College system

Features of the Electoral College System It is FEDERAL – it gives power to the states. It is FEDERAL – it gives power to the states. Whoever wins the Presidency has to win 270 of the 538 Electoral College (EC) votes e.g. in 2000 Bush beat Al Gore by 271 to 266. Whoever wins the Presidency has to win 270 of the 538 Electoral College (EC) votes e.g. in 2000 Bush beat Al Gore by 271 to 266. Voters cast their vote for President in their own state on Election Day, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Voters cast their vote for President in their own state on Election Day, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Voters actually vote for delegates, known as Electors. Each state has as many Electors as it has congressmen e.g. California has 54 and Rhode Island has 3. Voters actually vote for delegates, known as Electors. Each state has as many Electors as it has congressmen e.g. California has 54 and Rhode Island has 3. In most states it is a system of simple majority i.e. the winner in each state usually takes all the votes - with the exception of Maine and Nebraska who have a proportional result In most states it is a system of simple majority i.e. the winner in each state usually takes all the votes - with the exception of Maine and Nebraska who have a proportional result

IT IS AN INDIRECT ELECTION The aim is to keep the choice of President away from the masses by spreading it evenly across the states. The aim is to keep the choice of President away from the masses by spreading it evenly across the states. Electors are on a slate – ‘group candidacy’, each ballot party having a group Electors are on a slate – ‘group candidacy’, each ballot party having a group Electors actually take their official vote on behalf of their states on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This is when the result is confirmed. The EC never actually meet. They cast their votes in their own states, meeting only for 2 hours every 4 years! Electors actually take their official vote on behalf of their states on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This is when the result is confirmed. The EC never actually meet. They cast their votes in their own states, meeting only for 2 hours every 4 years!

Why did the Founding Fathers come up with this system ? It was a compromise to those who wanted the state legislatures to chose the President and those who felt power should rest with the masses It was a compromise to those who wanted the state legislatures to chose the President and those who felt power should rest with the masses A national election in those days was impractical and would have produced an inaccurate result. Small numbers of elected persons in each state should do the job for the masses as they were better informed A national election in those days was impractical and would have produced an inaccurate result. Small numbers of elected persons in each state should do the job for the masses as they were better informed Arguably each state had different rules about franchise and this was unlikely to be reconciled Arguably each state had different rules about franchise and this was unlikely to be reconciled This is one of the few incidences of institutionally protected states rights and for this reason the EC is still strongly supported This is one of the few incidences of institutionally protected states rights and for this reason the EC is still strongly supported

Faithless Electors – it does happen Only 22 states actually bind their Electors, although there is often no penalty and there are no records of prosecution Only 22 states actually bind their Electors, although there is often no penalty and there are no records of prosecution Congress can declare faithless electoral votes void if both houses agree that there has been an irregularity Congress can declare faithless electoral votes void if both houses agree that there has been an irregularity There have been 9 such cases in history – in both 2000 and In 2000, one of the Democratic DC votes was blank when it should have been Al Gore, she gave the reason as one of protest against DC’s lack of representation in Congress. In 2004, again a Democratic Elector wrote John Edwards, who was the running mate, not the Presidential candidate. It may have been a mistake, as a secret ballot we will never know. There have been 9 such cases in history – in both 2000 and In 2000, one of the Democratic DC votes was blank when it should have been Al Gore, she gave the reason as one of protest against DC’s lack of representation in Congress. In 2004, again a Democratic Elector wrote John Edwards, who was the running mate, not the Presidential candidate. It may have been a mistake, as a secret ballot we will never know.

Further Points The simple majority system is not binding, it has simply become a convention The simple majority system is not binding, it has simply become a convention The period between the two election stages is used for recounts, challenges and controversies. The period between the two election stages is used for recounts, challenges and controversies. The ballot paper - Electors names may appear on a party slate under the name of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate, but in 42 states and in DC the Presidential Short Ballot is used which is less confusing, although it is still the same system The ballot paper - Electors names may appear on a party slate under the name of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate, but in 42 states and in DC the Presidential Short Ballot is used which is less confusing, although it is still the same system Electors are chosen by the national and state parties for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. Electors are chosen by the national and state parties for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways.

The 2000 Election, what conclusions can be drawn about the system? It is discriminating against minor party candidates who may have widespread support but not win in any state against the huge weight of the two main party machines e.g. Ross Perot won 16% of the pop. vote but no EC votes in On the other hand, George Wallace did gain EC votes in southern regions in It is discriminating against minor party candidates who may have widespread support but not win in any state against the huge weight of the two main party machines e.g. Ross Perot won 16% of the pop. vote but no EC votes in On the other hand, George Wallace did gain EC votes in southern regions in The Al Gore v Bush story, first time in 100 years The Al Gore v Bush story, first time in 100 years The simple plurality system is not democratic as it can come to just 1 vote on many levels. The simple plurality system is not democratic as it can come to just 1 vote on many levels. On the other hand, the closeness of the 2000 election did show that the minor party candidates played a significant role in terms of free and fair competition, as every vote counted On the other hand, the closeness of the 2000 election did show that the minor party candidates played a significant role in terms of free and fair competition, as every vote counted

….. continued The simple plurality system avoids a dead heat. The closeness is more a result of parity between parties. However if there was a dead heat it would be Congress who decide and that would go against the principle of separation of powers and if for example it were a third party candidate the decision would be purely partisan and they would have no chance. The simple plurality system avoids a dead heat. The closeness is more a result of parity between parties. However if there was a dead heat it would be Congress who decide and that would go against the principle of separation of powers and if for example it were a third party candidate the decision would be purely partisan and they would have no chance. It is a very tactical system – the Presidency can be secured by winning the 11 largest states. Marginal states can also attract all the attention e.g. Florida, Illinois, Washington and Wisconsin received the majority of the $68 mill available to each of the candidates from federal funds in It is a very tactical system – the Presidency can be secured by winning the 11 largest states. Marginal states can also attract all the attention e.g. Florida, Illinois, Washington and Wisconsin received the majority of the $68 mill available to each of the candidates from federal funds in The System distorts the size of the win e.g. JFK won 200,00 more votes than Nixon but 100 more EC votes! The System distorts the size of the win e.g. JFK won 200,00 more votes than Nixon but 100 more EC votes!

What do we think of arguments in favour of the Electoral College? The election does not have to be that close for the winner of the popular vote to lose the pop vote and vice versa. In 2004, even with a good majority of the popular vote – 52%, G Bush, could have lost to John Kerry if just 60,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way. The election does not have to be that close for the winner of the popular vote to lose the pop vote and vice versa. In 2004, even with a good majority of the popular vote – 52%, G Bush, could have lost to John Kerry if just 60,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way. The population centre is shifting towards the southern and western states would traditionally favour the Republicans. At the same time the population growth in the south would be in part down to the growth in the Latino population, and even though they would lean toward Democrat, many are unregistered or are not citizens The population centre is shifting towards the southern and western states would traditionally favour the Republicans. At the same time the population growth in the south would be in part down to the growth in the Latino population, and even though they would lean toward Democrat, many are unregistered or are not citizens

Possible Reforms It is no longer necessary for the Presidency to be separated from the people It is no longer necessary for the Presidency to be separated from the people A nationwide vote is now entirely possible but recounts would be complicated A nationwide vote is now entirely possible but recounts would be complicated A constitutional amendment would be required but as the EC gives small states a small moment in the spotlight, they are unlikely to give support to change even if there was a political will for it at national level, which there is not. A constitutional amendment would be required but as the EC gives small states a small moment in the spotlight, they are unlikely to give support to change even if there was a political will for it at national level, which there is not.

……………… The magnitude of victory further endorses the winner and in terms of OUTPUT this is good The magnitude of victory further endorses the winner and in terms of OUTPUT this is good Reform would be more desirable at local level e.g the simple plurality system could be changed without an amendment to the constitution. It s already in Maine and Nebraska. Also many of the voting machines are over 50 years old as the Florida recount revealed. $3.5billion has already been pledged from Congress to address this. Reform would be more desirable at local level e.g the simple plurality system could be changed without an amendment to the constitution. It s already in Maine and Nebraska. Also many of the voting machines are over 50 years old as the Florida recount revealed. $3.5billion has already been pledged from Congress to address this. Independent overseers could be employed. Independent overseers could be employed. ELECTIONS HAVE TO BE SEEN TO BE FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS HAVE TO BE SEEN TO BE FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC

…..and one more thing When judging the relevance and effectiveness of the Electoral College system it is important to consider it in the opposite light to the viewpoint most commonly held by its critics. When judging the relevance and effectiveness of the Electoral College system it is important to consider it in the opposite light to the viewpoint most commonly held by its critics. Critics usually view elections in terms if INPUT, who votes, how they vote, equality of votes etc. The Founding Fathers however thought it at least as important to consider the OUTPUT, what kind of men does it produce, how will it affect the working of the political system, what is its bearing on the political character of the whole country? Critics usually view elections in terms if INPUT, who votes, how they vote, equality of votes etc. The Founding Fathers however thought it at least as important to consider the OUTPUT, what kind of men does it produce, how will it affect the working of the political system, what is its bearing on the political character of the whole country? You should consider both these aspects – and ask yourself if successful OUTPUT is enough to make it legitimate. You should consider both these aspects – and ask yourself if successful OUTPUT is enough to make it legitimate.