Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Introduction to How the Electoral College Works


There was a request to post something about the Electoral College. Let me know if you have any questions. We will cover all of this in class later in the semester.


After the 2000 U.S. presidential election, just about everybody in the United States was talking about the Electoral College. In the end, of course, Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he was awarded the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.


In this article, we'll explain how this interesting system works. How is it that a candidate could win more votes overall and yet not be elected? What would happen if there were a tie in the Electoral College? Who then would elect the president? You will find out about the past elections that weren't decided on Election Day but weeks later, when the Electoral College met, and some that weren't decided until months later. You'll also learn about the strange election of the first son of a former president to win the presidency.


History of the Electoral CollegeEvery four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.


The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.


Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.


Selecting Electors


If you're wondering how someone becomes an elector, it turns out it's not the exact same process across the board. It can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:


The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).


The elector "campaigns" for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention. There's the how, but what about the "what" -- as in, "What are the required qualifications of an elector?" There really aren't any. According to the National Archives and Records (NARA) Web site, "the U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors." While the constitution doesn't dictate what an elector should know or be able to do, it does suggest who or what an elector cannot be:


He or she cannot be a Representative or Senator
He or she cannot be a high-ranking U.S. official in a position of "trust or profit"
He or she cannot be someone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. Now, what about the "who?" Who is it that gets nominated or voted in and assigned to the post?


Usually, electors are people who are highly politically active in their party (be it Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican ...) or connected somehow to the political arena, such as: activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state and even people who have ties (political and/or personal) to the Presidential candidates, themselves.


So, we've covered the how, what and who -- but that's not all! There's still faithless electors, winner-takes-all and the district system to consider...


Electoral College Voting

The final electors for each state are voted on by the state's residents on voting day. In many states, the electors' names are printed on the ballots -- where those names "sit" depends on the state. For example, the electors could be listed directly under the presidential candidates' names (Democrats with the Democratic nominee, Libertarians with the Libertarian nominee, Republicans with the Republican nominee and so on) or simply grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. And, of course, the names might not even be listed at all. Essentially, it is the electors who get voted "in" who end up casting the "real" vote.


Hold on, it seems like the last two sentences don't go together, "How can someone be voted "in" if they're not even on a ballot?" Consider this information from the Department of the Secretary of State for North Carolina:


Under North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, the names of candidates for electors of President and Vice-President nominated by any political party recognized in this State under North Carolina General Statute § 163-96 or by any unaffiliated candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his name printed on the general election ballot under North Carolina General Statute § 163-122 must be filed with the Secretary of State. A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors of the party or unaffiliated candidate by which those candidates for elector were nominated and whose names have been filed with the Secretary of State. The key is this part, "A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors..." This is the case for 48 states -- it's known as the "winner-take-all system." The other system, known as the "district system," is observed in both Maine and Nebraska. In these states, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by congressional districts, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district.


Now, in regard to "winner-take-all" states, keep in mind what we said in the last section: Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal. Although if you do vote against your party, you'll most likely be simultaneously forfeiting your post as elector and you may even incur a hefty fine --



"Faithless Electors"It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called "faithless electors."


In response to these faithless electors' actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.


It's important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.


Electoral College Results

In most presidential elections, a candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. There have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes.


Here are the four elections when the candidate who led the popular vote did not win the office:


1824: John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.


1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.


1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.


In 2000, Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received 50,455,156 votes. After Bush was awarded the state of Florida, he had a total of 271 electoral votes, which beat Gore's 266 electoral votes.


Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.


Here are the two elections that were decided by the House of Representatives:


1801: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democrat-Republicans, received the same number of electoral votes, despite the fact that Burr was running as a vice presidential candidate, not for the presidency. Following 36 successive votes in the House, Jefferson was finally elected president.


1825: As mentioned above, Andrew Jackson received a majority of the popular vote over John Quincy Adams, but neither man received a 131-vote majority of electoral votes needed at the time to claim the presidency. Adams won the House vote on the first ballot.


The Electoral College Debate


Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system served its purpose in the elections we talked about, despite the fact that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.


In 2000, as the election approached, some observers thought that Bush, interestingly also the son of a former president, could win the popular vote, but that his opponent, Gore, could win the Electoral College vote because Gore was leading in certain big states, such as California, New York and Pennsylvania.

22 comments:

gillianwelch03 said...

Gillian Welch
3rd

I especially like the picture.
I think it's a good idea but overall votes should really win out in the end. It's "We the people", right? So we should all have the final say.
But then, there are a lot of people who just go vote to mess things up. Someone told me during the last election that Mickey Mouse makes up quite a percentage.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Kayleigh Robertson said...

Kayleigh Robertson
6th

I think that having the electoral college ultimately decide who is going to be president is a good idea. If a candidate is voted for because of popularity or something he is promising the country, then the people who voted for him are not looking at everything else he says he will do. In this case the electoral college is great because they look at every part of the candidate and can decide if he can properly run the country and do a good job. Although, this can go the opposite way for the electoral college; i.e. they vote based on popularity...

AnjalieSchlaeppi06 said...

Thanks for this article! Now I understand, but i still thinks it's not really fair... Because like it happend 4 times, people vote for a president but he doesn't get elected... But i'm probably too much influenced by the Swiss way to do things, voting for every laws...
But it's really interesting though

PatrickMcNeill2pd said...

I agree with the electoral college because overall it seems Americans are withdrawn from the election and political process and many I wouldn't want to have in charge of deciding our leader.

Unknown said...

The framers of the constitution were a minority (powerful white landowning men) and therefore wanted to protect their property best they could, creating a compromise system to block out the desire/need of the majority. I don't see how that makes sense or a popular vote would be dangerous. It may be dangerous today because many people who vote are passionate enough to go the polls are part of a faction, but the framers aren't future-seers, so that worked out by luck.
Though by cause and effect, if presidency was decided on popular vote, maybe it would nudge a few more people off their hinds and go vote...which would more accurately represent the desire of the majority...and somewhat nullify the constitution and some intentions of the founding fathers or whatever... but ultimately make voting more fun and exciting

Ethan A said...

I think it is a great idea and is good representation of the state. But since they divide the elctorals up by states, i think each state should have an equal amount of electors. i also don't agree with the fact that it is legal for the representatives to vote for someone when the state population voted for the other, they are chosen by the people to represent their state so whoever the people chose, the reps. should as well.

Amanda Betancur said...

Hmm our government system is so confusing, but I agree with the use of the electoral college because although many people would want to directly vote for reps. how many of them would actually do this following their own beliefs.

Jaysie said...

I learned a lot from this article. When I was still in China, I heard about that Bush won the presidency with a lower votes on the popular. That really confused me for a while. Now I know how it works now. But I think it will have some kind of bias in the Electoral College. People should have the right to choose who their president is.

By Liulinbo Yang (6)

Dylan B said...

I agree that the electorial college is better than just by going with the popular vote because it generally goes by breaking it down to the popular vote of the state and even though there are faithless electors who vote against what the people of the state want it's probably for good reason because they do know the consenquences of their actions.

Chris Reynolds 2nd Period said...

Chris Reynolds
2nd
The electoral college prohibits democracy. The public should vote, and the candidate with the majority should win.

savedraanjelica said...

Anjelica Savedra
9th grade
4th period
I get the Electoral College and how Bush won the election. You can vote for who you want but then you don't get who you voted for. Its not fair because the other candidated is winning all these states but don't win the election. I think that everybody has the right to vote for who they want.

AlexWheeler2 said...

I think we should reform this system. It's to complicated, why not just have a popular vote? If 10 Americans want one thing and 9 want the other, the 10 should win regardless of region or representatives. I mean honestly what makes the electoral college more qualified than ME to say MY opinion. Ultimately the peoples votes should be represented, adding the middle-men just muddles up the system. It would be a bit radical of a change to happen over one election, but we should probably ween ourselves off of this system.

nick medina per.6 said...

i kinda the way how the "winner take all" system works because its seems to be easy to win that way. "A vote for the president is a vote for me" That would be a nice little slogan.

danielmendoza 6th said...

The electoral college seemes like a good idea to have. They check and scope out to see whice person is best suited to become president and vote based on there criteria. However I think that the popular vote should have more of a saying because why would you have a president running a country where most of the people don't support him.

AnjalieSchlaeppi06 said...

In those comment a lot of people are saying they are for the electoral college because americans are stupid, they don;t know who would make a good president and they think it's a joke...
But... Was George Bush the best for America...?

BrockC said...

I think this is a great article especially for young kids such as our self who will be able to vote in the next election. I think the electoral college is the obvious way to decide who wins the presidency because it is more about the issues they are covering and it doesn't turn into a popularity contest. One more thing John Belushi rules!!!

SarahRock said...

sarah rock
6th period

well, on the one hand, the electoral college is a good thing because people seem to be less interested in voting nowadays. also, people sometimes don't vote for the right reason. voting for someone because you "don't like the other guy" isn't really the way to go. on the other hand, the people should have a say. it could really go either way, i suppose.

Kyle Cruz 3rd said...

I have heard many people not want to vote simply because they believe that their vote won’t make a difference, but I believe they are in that state of mind because they are uneducated on politics and government and things such as the Electoral College, yet to some extent there vote dosent count for one vote but rather a fraction of one.

schoolguy said...

Landon Henderson
pd. 4th
grade: 9th

I always hated that the U.S government always got the final say in who got elected. They just want us to think that we choose who gets to be president. I wish we had the final say.

Kasey Mohler 6 said...

Now that I have read this article the electoral college process is more clear. I think this is good because the electoral college looks at all aspects of the candidate and not just on popularity.

a said...

Luke D'Cunha
Period 2, Government

I think that this way of doing things is a very good idea, in the USA. But this system might, in the future, lead to riots and such if a person with fewer popular votes gets to be president. But so far, in the US, this system has been shown to be relatively good, I think.

g.a.b.e. said...

I can see where people think it's "unfair" how a presidential candidate cannot win soley on the people's vote, but from the content of the article, the electoral college is a must, so that there is a ballace. Although some would argue it's not equal.

And sorry Mr. Perry, but I have a zero for Class Work 1, and I blogged last week. Maybe I'm just reading the online gradebook wrong, but I just thought I'd bring that up. Thanks

Gabriel Quinteros- 2nd