Posted on 10/31/2004 5:49:25 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
As the US presidential election draws near, it helps to reflect upon the peculiar institution called the Electoral College in order to prepare for and understand the possibility that the next president might not reflect that popular political will of the electorate. This system, which is provided for in Article II of the constitution and was further refined by the passage of the 12th Amendment, has guided the selection of presidents and vice presidents since the late 18th century and has only been modified once - in 1961, is one of the idiosyncrasies of the US political system, a remnant of the inventiveness and insight of the nation's founding fathers.
How it works Each state in the United States is apportioned a number of Electoral College electors equal to its senators and representatives in Congress, with an additional three electors for the District of Columbia (Washington, the national capital). So, for example, the state of Louisiana, which has six representatives (based on population) and two senators (every state, regardless of size, has two senators) would have eight electors. Thus there are a total of 538 electors in the system. To win the presidency a candidate is required to win a simple majority of 270 electors.
Electors are chosen within the states by the political parties. The two major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, choose electors at statewide conventions, or they are appointed by party leadership within the state. Each state party organization submits a slate of electors to the chief election official of the state - in the example of Louisiana, they would submit a slate of eight potential electors. Most smaller parties simply appoint electors. Being chosen by one's party as an elector is seen as an honor and a reward for distinguished service to the party.
Next Tuesday when US voters enter the voting booth, they will not actually be voting for the president directly. Rather they will vote for the electors pledged to their candidate of choice. Although this is a subtle difference, it is an important one. On most ballots, voters will simply choose a box labeled "Electors for John Kerry" or "Electors for George W Bush", but in some cases the names of the electors are placed on the ballots as well. In all cases, however, the affiliation of the electors is clearly indicated.
When the votes are counted in each state, the candidate with the plurality of votes (not necessarily a majority) wins all of the electors from the state. Thus, in this winner-take-all system, if the popular vote in Louisiana went 55% for Bush, 42% for Kerry, and 3% for Ralph Nader, Bush would win all eight Electoral votes for the state. Nebraska and Maine are the only two exceptions to this rule; there, state law dictates that the winner of the popular vote for the entire state will automatically receive two of the state's electors, while the rest are determined according to the vote of individual congressional districts. Thus it mirrors the process for choosing senators and representatives for Congress, and the Electoral vote in those states can be divided between the candidates. In all cases, after the popular votes are counted and the electors assigned to the winner, the popular vote no longer matters. The voters have in effect delegated authority to the electors to cast a vote for one candidate or the other.
It is possible, as has happened three times in the past (most recently in 2000), for a candidate to win the election despite losing the popular vote. The easiest way to imagine this would be if the losing candidate were to win by very high popular margins in a few high-population states, but lose in close races in many lower-population states. In this scenario, the winner would be the candidate who won the most electors, rather than the winner of the popular vote.
On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the electors gather in their respective state capitals to cast their votes. This is when the president of the United States is officially chosen.
The finer points If neither of the major-party candidates receives 270 votes (if a third-party candidate were to garner some states, for example), the election is decided by the House of Representatives. Each of the 50 states casts one vote only, and a simple majority chooses the president. This has happened twice, in 1801 with Thomas Jefferson and 1825 with John Quincy Adams.
Although the electors are "pledged" to a particular candidate, there is nothing in the US constitution mandating that they actually vote for that candidate. Thus it is possible for electors to defect, though this is not very common, as these "faithless" electors would be ostracized by their parties. In the last election there was one "faithless" elector, a District of Columbia delegate who refused to cast her ballot for the Al Gore/Joseph Lieberman ticket as a protest against the non-state status of DC. It also happened in the 1988 and 1976 elections, when one elector from the Democratic and Republican parties respectively altered their votes. In all three cases the defection had no impact on the final results; defections would have to happen on a wide scale to change the results, and many states have adopted laws preventing defection by electors.
This system is also somewhat dynamic, as the relative power of states changes according to their populations. Every 10 years a census is taken in the United States, and the results are used to redraw congressional districts. Though the total number of representatives is constant at 435, the distribution throughout the states changes. This in turn affects the Electoral votes for each state. Over the past half-century there have been some general population trends that have affected the political scene. Rust-belt states (industrial states from Pennsylvania to Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan) have lost population, with each of these states losing two Electoral votes over the past 20 years. New York has lost five. These traditionally Democrat-leaning states have weakened the Democratic Party somewhat, as states in the south and southwest, which tend to vote Republican, have gained population and Electoral votes. Texas has gained five votes. At the same time, California, a strong Democratic state, has gained eight votes over the past 20 years.
History of the system The Electoral College system was originally designed as a compromise to guard against the "political passions" of the electorate and the personal agendas of their representatives. In the late 18th century when the system was being designed, its architects worried that the people of the new nation might be subject to whimsical voting and popular currents, as in those days in the expansive United States communication was poor and travel difficult and time-consuming, and so it was difficult for candidates to mount a nationwide campaign. The other alternative was to allow Congress to choose the president, but this was not an acceptable choice because it was seen as a blurring of the lines between the executive and legislative branches of government, and it was felt that individual representatives might let their personal agendas interfere with the job of representing their constituents.
Thus the Electoral College was born. In the earliest days of the College, the electors cast their votes for individual candidates rather than a party slate consisting of a president and vice president. The winner of the most electors was chosen as president, while the runner-up was vice president. Occasionally this led to a situation when bitter rivals were elected to serve together. Through the years, as parties have become more organized and well defined, and as communication and transportation have improved, the Electoral College has become somewhat ceremonial, though its provisions can sometimes cause huge controversies, as was the case in the 2000 election.
The system has persisted unchanged since the 12th Amendment was passed in 1804 except for a minor modification by the 23rd Amendment in 1961, which stipulated that the District of Columbia would have three electors.
The critics This system has drawn a great deal of criticism due to the possibility that the president might be elected without winning the popular vote. Although this had happened in 1876 and 1888, it was considered an almost academic possibility until the 2000 election, when George W Bush was elected despite having lost the popular vote by more that half a million votes. Calls for a new system intensified, with Democrats leading the charge. The critics argue that those who vote for the loser in every state are disfranchised.
Other critics of the system point to the fact that smaller states (in terms of population) have disproportionate representation. Since each state is guaranteed at least three Electoral votes, voters in sparsely populated states, such as Wyoming, technically have more say as to who becomes president. For example, in 1988 the combined voting-age populations of the seven least populous states was just over 3 million, but they had 21 Electoral votes. Florida, with a population three times as large, also had 21 Electoral votes. Critics also argue that in the event of the race being decided by the House of Representatives (in the case where no candidate achieves a simple majority), the smaller states have disproportionate power due to the one-state-one-vote rule.
Critics also argue that the current system discourages third parties by making it extremely difficult for them to have a showing in the Electoral College results. Although third-party candidates have won Electoral votes in the past, the most recent high-profile third-party candidates, Ralph Nader and H Ross Perot, failed to win a single Electoral vote despite substantial popular-vote counts, especially in the case of the latter.
The defenders Proponents of the system counter these arguments by saying that the criticisms of the Electoral College system could be generalized to become indictments of the whole federal system of the United States. They also argue that if the president were decided by a pure popular majority, the election would be more vulnerable to fraud, as each state would have an incentive to run up the vote in favor of a particular candidate. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the officials charged with counting the ballots often are members of one party or another. In the current system, however, any potential fraud is compartmentalized, as the votes from one state do not affect other states. In addition, the current system, it is argued, makes a recount easier, as it is only necessary to recount the votes in the disputed state(s).
Supporters also argue that the system protects the rights of rural voters and residents of small states by guaranteeing that candidates expend time and political capital in an effort to win their Electoral votes. Without the system the candidates would probably focus all of their time and energy on major urban centers. The current system ensures that candidates visit and cater to the wants and needs of all citizens. The phenomenon of swing states is an example of this state-to-state campaigning.
Ironically, proponents of the system also use the third-party argument, suggesting that the current system prevents the formation of splinter parties that have disrupted politics in other democracies. They argue that the Electoral College system protects the integrity of the two-party system. They also argue that any move to congressional-district-based apportionment would encourage gerrymandering (the drawing of election districts to favor one party or population).
Alternatives? Over the years there have been hundreds of proposed constitutional amendments to change the system, but none of them has passed. After the 2000 election, debate intensified and there were renewed calls for an overhaul of the system.
The most likely reform would be to assign electors based on the winners in each congressional district, as is the practice in Nebraska and Maine. Any move in this direction, though, would probably have to be at the state level, as all previous constitutional amendments have failed. When voters go to the polls next week in Colorado they will decide on such a proposal. If the 2004 election is as close as the 2000 election and is decided in a similar manner, there will likely be more such initiatives in the coming years.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and
.
If there is a tie and the Senate swings to the dems, can they pick Hillary as VP?
No, they're restricted to the top two vote-getters for the VP slot. They would pick Edwards.
435 members of Congress is not enough. My great grandfather had better representation in Congress than I have ever had.
The number of Congressional seats should at least be doubled. I think that no Congress seat holder should represent more than a quarter million people. Perhaps it should be even less than that.
The 17th Amendment also was one of the worst things to happen in our Country. Senators should be answerable to the state legislatures. What we have now is big business controlling things with money. Previously, a senator could be recalled, and replaced as the founding fathers intended.
http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm
Please pardon me for ranting, I am in a mood.
I agree. However I would advocate setting the number of so that the representation is approximately the same as the orginal 13 States. That would give us about 5,000 Representatives.
Wow, straight forward fact based reporting. This is one thing I wish we could import more of to the US.
I've never thought of it - the vote happens after the new legislators are sworn in?!
Heh, heh. This would make for a VERY responsive House and eliminate the problem of gerrymandering. The congressional districts would be so small, they couldn't be gerrymandered. It would also open up 4500 seats to average citizens who are probably sheriffs and school board reps now. It would probably also balance the budget.
Of course, the COST of Congress would go up ten fold, but if the Federal spending went down 10%, it would be well worth it.
Combine this with the repeal of the 17th amendment and Congress would be MUCH more representative of the US people. I used to think the 17th amendment was a good thing--I didn't want my state rep picking my Senator. But I didn't realize that the heavy urban population centers bias the senators toward the urban point of view. Having the state reps pick the senators is more balanced and makes them more responsive to the needs of their state.
Amazong that an Asian paper has the most concise clear explanation of the Electoral College I have seen.
Yes, it does. But if it's a 50-50 Senate, Cheney would still be there to break the tie.
The biggest advantage of the Electoral College is that ballot box stuffing is isolated to the State where it occurs. If we had direct election of the President, then the Party that fabricates the most votes wins.
I found that in the 12th amendment. Thanks for clearing that up. I can sleep better now knowing Hillary won't be in the White House just yet. :)
If the new senate were 50-49-1, with Jeffords voting with the DemocRATS, Vice President Cheney would have to break the tie. I assume he would vote for himself.
No member of Congress should be paid a penny more than the lowest ranking member of our Military.
The cost would not necessarily go up. Congressional staffs do work that congressmen used to do themselves. With more congressmen, there would be less need for non-elected staffers for local offices back home. Congressional pay should be cut, and Congress should be limited to sessions of 100 days per year. The rest of the time they should be back in their districts acually living under the laws they pass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.