Third Party & Independents: Archives

April 04, 2004

The Facts About the Electoral College

A lot of confusion, misunderstanding, and down right falsehoods exist about the functionality of the Electoral College. Many seek to replace it with direct elections, even the Founding Fathers were of two minds concerning its creation and usage; Alexandra Hamilton supported it (see Federalist Paper No. 68), while Thomas Jefferson opposed it, stating:

I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Hay, 1823.

Herein is an overview on how the Electoral College works straight from those guardians of the American electoral process, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:


  • Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
  • The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
  • Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  • After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
  • On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
  • Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
  • On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
  • In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
  • The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
  • The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
  • In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
  • At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.


Posted by V. Edward Martin at April 4, 2004 01:44 PM
Comments
Comment #11195

V. Edward:

A negative aspect, in my mind, of the electoral college is that it makes a state’s vote an all-or-nothing event. This means that if one happens to live in a state where one party is considerably more popular than the other, then minority party votes in that state really don’t matter much.

Seems to me a potential compromise to this would be a percentage apportionment of the state’s electoral votes. For instance, Party A wins a state by a 60-40% majority over Party B. If the state has 20 electoral votes, Party A wins 12 while Party B wins only 8.

This would also create a more widespread interest in the election process, since all states would be kept in play. As an example, since I live in a state that has voted for one party in the last 15 elections, its pretty safe to say that it will go the same way this year(an assumption, I know, but one that continues to bear out election after election). Many people do not vote simply because they feel they already know the outcome of the state vote. But a percentage basis would bring these people out, and ultimately increase the woeful national voting percentage.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 4, 2004 03:10 PM
Comment #11206

>Many people do not vote simply because they feel they already know the outcome of the state vote.

I agree with Mr. Bag O’ Donuts. Like gerrymandering, the electoral college discourages people from voting by creating noncompetitive states/districts. If there is no competitive election on the ballot in a district, then voters there can say with some justification that “my vote doesn’t count”.

A more partisan gripe that I have against the electoral college is that it probably help Republcians. In a popular election, the Dems could heavily advertise in big cities and the Republicans would have to track down every last angry white man with a shotgun. Not to stereotype or anything. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 4, 2004 08:02 PM
Comment #11219

> A negative aspect, in my mind, of the electoral
> college is that it makes a state’s vote an all-
> or-nothing event.

This is not true in Maine and Nebraska, who send a proportional number of electors for each candidate in the election. Apparently the “winner takes all” method is not dictated by the Constitution.

I think the Electoral College stinks, but I’d have much less of a problem with it if we simply had a proportional Senate. That way the number of electors per state might even out a little bit.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at April 4, 2004 10:45 PM