Since this is a Presidential election year, and, without fail, vigorous discontent about the Electoral College system extends through and immediately following a Presidential election, I thought it would be a good idea, as a timely refresher, to talk about the system, its origins, how it works, etc., with the hope that we might be able to better formulate our arguments either for or against it.
When we vote in a Presidential election, we actually vote how the electors from our state will vote. By midnight of the day of the election, we usually know the winner, but it is not until electors cast their votes in their respective state capitals that we officially have a new President and Vice President elect. By the way, the electors do not actually cast their votes until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This tradition began in the 1800s because it took that long after the popular election to count the votes and for the electors to travel to their state capitals.
The Electoral College (hereafter referred to as EC) system was established by Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804. The exact wording is at the Government Archives website: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html. The EC is administered by the National Archives and Records Administration.
The EC was originally formed because the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that people were given direct input in choosing their leaders and initially only saw two ways to accomplish this: either everyone would vote for and elect the President and Vice President based on popular votes alone, or people of each state would elect their members of Congress by popular election and then those elected members of Congress would in turn elect the President and Vice President themselves.
The direct popular election option was feared because there was no structure yet by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. There were no national political parties at the time and communication was slow. A candidate could be popular regionally, but be unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates could divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, election by Congress would require members to vote according to the desires of the people of their states. However, this could have led to elections that reflected political agendas of the members of Congress over that of the people. The compromise was Electoral College system.
Although state laws differ on how their electors are chosen, generally they are selected by the individual state’s political party committees. You can check out your own state’s procedure by going to your state’s website and searching for “Electoral College.” As an example, I looked up California and found this: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ec.htm. It is important to note that Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution provides that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or are chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party.
The number of electors in each state is equal to its number of each state’s members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus two (for the number of Senators). The District of Columbia gets three. Each elector gets one vote. Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes. There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them – 270 votes – are required to be elected. Since EC representation is based on Congressional representation, it follows that states with larger populations get more EC votes.
The distribution of electoral votes for the 2004 and 2008 Elections is given here: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html. Note that the website explains that the numbers of votes allocated were based on the 2000 Census, which determines the number of Representatives in the House, which (again) determines the number of electoral votes.
If neither candidate wins 270 electoral votes, the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The combined Representatives of each state get one vote and a simple majority of states is required to win. In our history, two Presidents have been elected by the House: Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825.
Forty-eight states use a winner-take-all system (giving all its electoral votes to the candidate who receives the highest popular vote); however, Maine and Nebraska do not. These two states grant their electoral votes based on the popular votes in each Congressional district of their states. If a candidate receives the majority of votes in California, he or she will be awarded all fifty-five electoral votes. However, if the same candidate does not win the majority in Nebraska, he or she can still gain one or two electoral votes if he or she wins one or more district.
When you look at the electoral votes for each state, you can see how it is possible it is for a candidate to lose a popular vote but still be elected President by the EC. Theoretically, in one scenario, a candidate could win in only eleven states (California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois) and the District of Columbia, and lose in the other thirty-nine, and still be elected.
In our recent history, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes; Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. (Note: one elector from the District of Columbia abstained.) Bush was elected. This is not the only time in our history that a President was elected who had not won the popular vote: Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
There actually is nothing in the Constitution that requires an elector to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them. Twenty-six states have no requirements. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring electors to vote for the nominees heading their party slate, but provide no penalty for those who do not. Five states have penalties for electors who violate their pledges. Throughout our history only ten electors (referred to as “faithless”) have failed to vote as pledged. None of these “faithless electors” changed the outcome of an election, but cast their votes to make a point or highlight an issue. While there were no legal ramifications, political reputations and careers were damaged.
The very nature of the EC makes it ripe for controversy: the Presidential election is not made by the popular vote; there is always the possibility that “faithless” electors will vote contrary to the public will; and voter turnout could be affected. On the other hand, the EC system encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of coherent alternatives which contribute to the political stability of the nation.
To eliminate the Electoral College would require an Amendment to the Constitution. So the next time you find yourself complaining about the Electoral College, take the time to write your Representatives and your Senators. Join an action group or start your own. Start working towards amending the Constitution.
But, please, don’t carry on ad nauseum about an “unfair system” unless you are ready to underline your complaints with meaningful active engagement.
Until next time, LLAP!
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment