Why does the USA Democratic system use electoral votes?

Question

It seems cheap to me, in a land where "All men are created equal", my vote doesn't count on an individual level. Why is a vote in Illinois worth more than one from Idaho? Is my citizenship worth more than another citizens? That's not possible with the way our declaration of independence is written. Our founding fathers spent a long time figuring this out and we're not giving it the respect it desires. How can it be that a president can lose the popular vote and win the election? This is not a game!!! To win! Just like many Sunday football games, where people make a play and everybody congrats the winning team on a good set of downs. This doesn't just affect our own country's well being, this is LIFE OR DEATH for the world's population!! The US, being a "superpower", how come one man's vote doesn’t really matter anym

Answer 1

because majority of the US citizen said electoral votes works for them, so it's still in use today. Majority is the key here. Your vote by itself doesn't mean much but when a lot of people with similar ideas .... you have something powerful.

if u don't like electoral votes, try to change it. you might succeed.

Answer 2

Actually you have it backwards. A vote in Idaho is worth much more than a vote in Illinois, because of Senators.

Illinois has a population of just under 13 million and 21 electoral votes, representing one vote for every 591,394 people.
Idaho has a population 1/10 that of Illinois, around 1.3 million, with 4 electoral votes, representing one vote for every 323,488 people.
So an electoral vote in Idaho is worth almost twice as much as a vote from Illinois.

Of course, with a winner take all system, winning big states becomes key. But California, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania are pretty much sewn up by Democrats; Texas is sown up by Republicans. Leaving Ohio and Michigan as the two big states in play.
Idaho, with 4 votes, does tend to get ignored. But that's because it's 60 percent Republican. A Democrat couldn't win it if they spent a billion dollars.
By the way, the only reason Chicago stations got advertising in 2004 was that you can see it in Wisconsin, which was a swing state both in 2000 and 2004. Blue both times.

Just FYI, I agree with you about the Electoral College. It's an archaic remnant that's used to key rich white men in power. But even if we get rid of it, you won't see any more candidates in Idaho.

Answer 3

I think a large part of the explanation for why we have an electoral college goes back to the arguments that took place at the Constitutional Convention. We seem to believe today that the Founding Fathers embraced the idea of democracy; in reality, most of them had reservations about the "common man" voting (many openly feared or even loathed the idea of "one man, one vote"). So, they compromised--a popular vote would be held, but an elite body would have the power to supersede the "will of the people" if they believed the people had been manipulated into making a bad decision. Remember, the idea that electors are BOUND to vote for the candidate who won their state is a relatively new phenomenon (it was not a part of the Constitution).

So, in short, I think the Electoral College also reflects the fear many of our Founding Fathers had of democracy.

Answer 4

I was taught in school that the reason the electoral system exists is that, before the days of instantaneous communication, this was a necessity to allow a counting of the votes from places that seemed terribly distant at that time.

I agree with you, that this is not an ideal system. I do realize, however, that the U.S. is not a democracy, but a republic, meaning it is a representative democracy, rather than a true democracy. I'm not saying it's right or wrong - just answering the question. Personally, I think the time for an electoral college is LONG past, and it should be abolished, so that my vote counts whether I vote for the winner in my state or not.

Answer 5

the unique objective for the electoral college, in accordance to the founders, is to help safeguard the presidency in case there develop right into a demagogue working for the race. If there develop into somebody who develop into of course risky to the country yet finally swayed "the mob" to vote for him, the element of the electors in the electoral college develop into to help safeguard the yank human beings from themselves by ignoring the favored vote and fairly finding out on the superb candidate. human beings like Alexander Hamilton have been extremely careful of letting the human beings rule, and he even advocates the Electoral college in Federalist sixty 8, wherein he writes "and since the electors, chosen in each and each State, are to deliver mutually and vote in the State wherein they are chosen, this indifferent and divided undertaking will show them much less to heats and ferments, which could be communicated from them to the human beings, than in the event that they have been all to be convened at one time, in one place." Hamilton develop into frightened of the aptitude of the yank human beings being whipped right into a frenzy and making a bad determination for President. All solid intentions aside, in spite of the undeniable fact that, the electoral equipment now no longer truly achieves that objective as we've a party equipment, and people who chosen the electors are the events. They ensure you p.c. the main non secular followers of the events, so however if individuals befell to vote for somebody very undesirable for the country -- say, somebody from a Fascist party -- the electors would be hardcore Fascists who will eagerly forged their vote for stated candidate. in spite of that, many human beings, truly those in smaller states, nonetheless assert that the electoral college is the only reason they are nonetheless suitable in presidential races. with out it, applicants could be lots greater probable to concentration on the massive city centers the place the anybody is located. however if or no longer it truly is a captivating effect is exterior the scope of this talk.

Answer 6

The intent was well meaning but the results have angered folks for hundreds of years. The problem facing the architects of the Electoral System were attempting to achieve a balance between, for example, your state of Idaho with its population and a state such as Illinois with a much greater population - - - - how fair would it be if say California & Texas & New York & Illinois were to cancel out the intentions of all the other states. Thus states are represented by Electors selected in proportion to the population of a given state - - - and it is also easier to count, for example, 23 electors from Pennsylvaniea then several hundred thousand votes from the same state.
The debate will rage on - - - it is a flawed system but selecting a President based solely on popular vote can be flawed. How many Republicans today would be happy if the popular vote from 2000 had been the determining factor rather than a few hefty ayments to a Supreme Court justices?
here is Wikipedia's Take

United States Electoral College
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Electoral votes by state/federal district, as of 2006The United States Electoral College is the official name of the group of Presidential Electors who are chosen every four years to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. It was established by Article Two, Section One of the United States Constitution, which provides for a quadrennial election of Presidential Electors in each state. The electoral process was modified in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment and again in 1961 with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment.

The Electoral College is administered at the national level by the National Archives and Records Administration via its Office of the Federal Register. The actual meetings of electors in each state are administered by state officials.
Electoral College mechanics
The election of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential electors are selected on a state by state basis as determined by the laws of each state. Currently each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to elect electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices. Although the nationwide popular vote is calculated by official and media organizations, it does not determine the winner of the election.


[edit] Apportionment of electors
The present allotment of electors by state is shown in the article List of U.S. states by population.

The size of the electoral college has been set at 538 since the election of 1964. Each state is allocated as many electors as it has Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress. Since the most populous states have the most seats in congress, they also have the most electors. The states with the most are California (55), followed by Texas (34) and New York (31). The smallest states by population, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, have three electors each. Because the number of representatives for each state is determined decennially by the United States Census, the electoral votes for each state are also determined by the Census every ten years. The number of electors is equal to the total membership of both houses of Congress (100 Senators and 435 Representatives) plus the 3 electors allocated to the District of Columbia, totalling 538 electors. A candidate must receive a majority of votes from the electoral college (currently 270) to win the Presidency, If no one receives a majority, the election is determined by Congress (the House for presidential candidates, the Senate for vice presidential candidates).

Under the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia is allocated as many Electors as it would have if it were a state, except that it cannot have more Electors than the least populous state. The least populous state (currently Wyoming) has 3 Electors, so the District cannot have more than 3 Electors.


[edit] How states currently select electors
Presidential elector candidates are nominated by their state political parties in the summer before the Election Day. Each state provides its own means for the nomination of electors. In some states, such as Oklahoma, the Electors are nominated in primaries the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, nominate electors in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of the candidates name their candidates for Presidential Elector (an attempt to discourage faithless Electors). All states require the names of all Electors to be filed with the Secretary of State (or equivalent) at least a month prior to election day. However, under the Constitution, candidates who hold a federal office are barred from being electors (an error made, but corrected, before both the 2000 and 2004 elections [1]).

On election day, voters cast ballots for slates of Presidential Electors pledged to the candidates for president and vice president. In most states, the candidates that win the popular vote have their entire slate of Electors elected. At the time of the state canvass of the vote, the Secretary of State (or equivalent) signs a special form called the Certificate of Ascertainment which sets forth the people elected to the office of Presidential Elector, along with the number of votes cast for every party's slate of Elector nominees. These Certificates of Ascertainment are forwarded to the Office of the Vice President to be used to verify that the people who cast the electoral votes are in fact the people who were elected for that purpose.

Two states do not elect the Presidential Electors as a single slate. Maine and Nebraska elect two electors by a statewide ballot and choose their remaining Electors by congressional district. The method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1991, though neither has split its electoral votes in modern elections.


[edit] Electing the President and Vice President
The Presidential Electors meet in their respective state capitals in December, 41 days following the election, at which time they cast their electoral votes. Thus the "electoral college" never meets as one national body. They ballot for President, then ballot for vice president. Afterward, the Electors sign a document called the Certificate of Vote which sets forth the number of votes cast for these two offices and is signed by all Electors. Multiple copies of the Certificate of Vote are signed, in order to provide multiple originals in case one is lost. One copy is sent to president of the Senate (the sitting Vice President of the United States). The certificates are placed in two special mahogany boxes where they await a joint session of the new Congress where they are opened and counted in alphabetical order by state by the president of the Senate. Candidates must receive a majority of the electoral vote to be declared the president-elect or vice-president-elect.

If no candidate for President receives an absolute electoral majority 270 votes out of the 538 possible, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President. In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes, but could not establish a majority of votes in the College. The House votes en-bloc by state for this purpose (that is, one vote per state, which is determined by the majority decision of the delegation from that state; if a state delegation were to split evenly, that state would be considered as abstaining). This vote would be repeated if necessary until one candidate receives the votes of more than half the state delegations—at least 26 state votes, given the current number, 50, of states in the union. This situation would most likely occur only when more than two candidates receive electoral votes, but could theoretically happen in a two-person contest if each received exactly 269 electoral votes.

If no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the United States Senate must do the same, with the top two vote getters for that office as candidates. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case, not by States. It is unclear if the sitting Vice President would be entitled to cast his usual tie-breaking vote if the Senate should be evenly split on the matter.

If the House of Representatives has not chosen a winner in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then the Constitution of the United States specifies that the new Vice President becomes Acting President until the House selects a President. If the winner of the Vice Presidential election is not known by then either, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House of Representatives would become Acting President until the House selects a President or the Senate selects a Vice President.

On the one hand, the Twelfth Amendment specifies that the Senate should choose the Vice President, and it does not admit of a time limit on the selection process. On the other hand, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment allows the President to nominate a Vice President if a vacancy should occur.

As of 2006, the House of Representatives has elected the President on two occasions, in 1801 and in 1825. The Senate has chosen the Vice President once, in 1837.


[edit] Faithless electors
Main article: Faithless elector
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect. On 158 occasions, electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president to whom they were pledged. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. In that year, Martin Van Buren's Vice Presidential running mate, Richard Johnson, did not receive the minimum votes to become the Vice President but ultimately won the office on the first ballot by the United States Senate in 1837.

There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as remove electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. In any event, a state may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact; it has no power to change his vote.

As electoral slates are normally chosen by the political party and/or the party's presidential nominee, electors are usually those with high loyalty to the party and its candidate, and a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than governmental action.


[edit] History
The Electoral College is intended to dilute the votes of population centers that may have different concerns from the majority of the country. The system is designed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than those of a specific region or state. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.

In the Federalist Papers No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of federal (state-based) and national (population-based) government. The Congress would have two houses, one federal and one national in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general. Both the Congress and the President would be elected by mixed federal and national means. [2]


[edit] Original Plan
The term "Electoral College" is not used in the United States Constitution, and it was not until the early 1800s that it came into general usage as the designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

Article II, Section 1, Clause II of the Constitution says, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President.


[edit] Alternative methods of choosing electors
The current system of choosing Presidential Electors is called the "short ballot." In all states, voters choose among slates of candidates for the associated Elector; only a few states list the names of the Presidential Electors on the ballot. (In some states, if a voter wishes to write in a candidate for president, the voter also is required to write in the names of candidates for Elector.)

Before the advent of the "short ballot" in the early twentieth century, the most common means of electing the Presidential Electors was through the "General Ticket." The General Ticket is quite similar to the current system and is often confused with it. In the General Ticket, voters cast ballots for individuals running for Presidential Elector (while in the short ballot, voters cast ballots for an entire slate of Electors). In the General Ticket, the state canvass would report the number of votes cast for each candidate for Elector, a complicated process in states like New York with multiple positions to fill. Both the General Ticket and the short ballot are often considered At Large or winner-takes-all voting. The short ballot was adopted by the various states at different times; it was adopted for use by North Carolina and Ohio in 1932 (possibly the first year in which it was used). Alabama was still using the General Ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot.


[edit] Appointment by state legislature
Another method of choosing electors is selection by the state legislature. It was used by more than half of the states in 1792 and 1800 and exactly half of the states in 1812. One of the reasons that most United States history textbooks don't start reporting the popular vote until the election of 1824 is because more than a quarter of all the states used legislative choice in previous elections, so there was no popular vote in those states. Even in 1824, when Andrew Jackson famously accused Adams and Clay of a "corrupt bargain" because he lost in spite of having pluralities of both the popular and electoral votes, a full quarter of the states (6 of 24) had the state legislatures choose their electors. By the following election, only Delaware and South Carolina continued to use legislative choice, and Delaware dropped out the following election. South Carolina held on to legislative choice until it became the first state to secede in December 1860.

Legislative appointment made two more appearances on the electoral stage: first, in 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections. Then, in 1876, the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold an election. (It was also a potent threat in the 2000 election: had the recounts continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal deadline for choosing electors.)

The Constitution gives the power to the state legislatures to decide how electors are chosen, and it is easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature has a serious flaw, aside from its democratic deficit: legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. In fact, this is precisely what happened in 1789, when New York failed to appoint any electors.


[edit] Electoral districts
Another method for choosing electors is to divide the state up into electoral districts, and the voters of each district get to choose a single elector, much as states are presently divided into congressional districts for choosing representatives. The electoral districts cannot correspond with congressional districts, because there are two more electoral districts than congressional districts. As with congressional districts, however, this method is prone to gerrymandering.

States using electoral districts
1789 Virginia
1792 Virginia Kentucky
1796 Virginia Kentucky Maryland North Carolina
1800 Kentucky Maryland North Carolina
1809 Kentucky Maryland North Carolina Tennessee
1808 Kentucky Maryland North Carolina Tennessee
1812 Kentucky Maryland Tennessee
1816 Kentucky Maryland Tennessee
1820 Kentucky Maryland Tennessee Illinois
1824 Kentucky Maryland Tennessee Illinois Missouri
1828 Maryland Tennessee
1832 Maryland
1892 Michigan


[edit] Maine method
The "Maine Method" is a mixture of the district and statewide / short ballot modes of selection. It has this name because it was adopted by Maine for the 1972 presidential election and remains in place. Nebraska has used the Maine Method for presidential elections since 1996.

In the Maine Method, the votes for president are summed for each congressional district. The party winning each district elects one Presidential Elector. Then the vote is summed for the entire state. The party winning the statewide vote elects two Presidential Electors.

The Maine Method was first used by Massachusetts in the elections of 1804, 1812, and 1820. After Maine split off from Massachusetts in 1820, it continued to use this method through the election of 1828, then abandoned it for 144 years before returning to it for the election of 1972.

In the 18 state contests in which this method has been used, only once has it achieved a result different from winner-take-all: in Maine, in 1828, 1 of Maine's 9 electoral votes went to Andrew Jackson.


[edit] New York, 1828
In 1828, New York used its own variant of the Maine method for choosing electors. Just as Maine and Nebraska now do, voters in each congressional district would select one elector. Then these electors would in turn choose the remaining electors, instead of these electors being directly determined by voters statewide. In this single state contest, it resulted in a 20–16 split between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.


[edit] Unequal weight of voters
Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equally weighted vote, regardless of what state they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in states with small populations. Under the current system, the vote of an individual living in a state with three electoral votes is proportionally more influential than the vote of an individual living in a state with a large number of electoral votes.

Proponents of the current system counter that electoral votes are worth more when they are bunched up together.[citation needed] For example: 21 electors are worth more than 7 sets of 3 electors, because 21 EVs could easily turn the result of the election, while a person voting in a 3-electoral vote state would not have such a proportionally large effect on the result.

Essentially, the Electoral College ensures that candidates, particularly in recent elections, pay attention to key 'swing-states' (those states that are not firmly rooted in either the Republican or Democratic party).


[edit] Losing the popular vote
In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president. The 1824 election was eventually decided by Congress and thus distinct from the last three which were decided without.

Proponents of the system counter that the Electoral College requires candidates to garner more widespread support throughout the Union; a popular vote system could elect a person who wins by a large margin in a few states over another person who wins by small margins in most states. The latter candidate, the argument goes, appeals to a broader array of interests than the former and is less likely to be a demagogue or extremist. However, the Electoral College is not guaranteed to favor the latter candidate in that scenario. In fact, given the 2000 allocation of electors, a candidate could win with the support of just the 11 largest states.

Given the electoral college, there is no legal significance to the national "popular vote." Because combining the different statewide popular votes into a single national vote has no legal or statistical significance, both voters and campaigns may base their strategies around the existence of the Electoral College. Claims of the electoral college denying the "popular will" are, therefore, debatable. For example, voters in Massachusetts or Texas in 2004, as their respective states were sure to vote Democrat or Republican for President, were more likely to vote for a third party candidate, or not vote at all, since their vote for their preferred Democrat or Republican candidate was extremely unlikely to change the result. Conversely, a voter in Florida was more likely to vote Democrat or Republican, even if they favored a third-party candidate, because their vote was much more likely to make a difference. Similarly, in any close race, candidates campaign to maximize electoral votes, not to maximize national popular vote totals.

The effects of this phenomenon are somewhat known, but impossible to quantify in any close election, such as in 2000, when Al Gore had more of the cast votes than George W. Bush.


[edit] Focus on large swing states
Most states use a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes. This gives candidates an incentive to pay the most attention to states without a clear favorite. For example,California, Texas, and New York, in spite of having the largest populations, have in recent elections been considered safe for a particular party, and therefore candidates typically devote relatively few resources, in both time and money, to such states.

It is also theoretically possible to win the election by winning all of eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take Texas (34 votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), North Carolina (15), New York (31), New Jersey (15), Michigan (17), Illinois (21), Georgia (15), Florida (27) and California (55), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win. (In theory, if a minimum number of voters were to vote in those eleven states, the other major ticket could have a landslide victory in the popular vote and still lose the election.) But such exercises are just that - exercises. There is no election in American history in which such an event has ocurred or come close to occuring. In the close elections of 2000 and 2004, these eleven states gave 111 votes to Republican candidate George W. Bush and 160 votes to Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry.

Proponents claim, however, that adoption of the popular vote would simply shift the disproportionate focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.[citation needed] Candidates might also be inclined to campaign hardest in their "base" areas to maximize turnout among core supporters, and ignore more closely divided parts of the country. Whether such developments would be good or bad is a matter of normative political theory and political interests of the voters in question.


[edit] Disadvantage for third parties
Some proponents of proportional representation claim that, because third parties generally start as regional phenomena[citation needed] and because the Electoral College is a form of regional allocation, the Electoral College would enhance the power of third parties if electoral votes were allocated by proportional representation.[citation needed] Generally, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's delegates, coupled with the winner-take-all approach of the college itself, decreases the importance of minor parties.


[edit] Arguments for the current system

[edit] Unrepresented Territories
If an American citizen is a resident of one of the unincorporated territories of the United States (i.e., American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands), he or she cannot vote for electors for President.


[edit] Requires a distribution of popular support to win the Presidency
Proponents of the Electoral College argue that organizing votes by regions forces a candidate to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning the election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few areas, the Electoral College avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations, such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire. Electoral College opponents, however, argue that this regional system can dilute the overall will of the people in close elections by thwarting the candidate with the popular majority.[1] Considering the distrust the Constitution's framers had of direct democracy, this result can be viewed as a foreseeable and desirable result of the arrangement.[2]

There are some examples of candidates winning elections without broad national support. For example, Lincoln won in 1860 without contesting a single southern state. On the other hand, in the elections of 1876 and 1888 Rutherford B. Hays and Benjamin Harrison, respectively, both lost the popular vote but won in the electoral college. In each case, the victorious candidate demonstrated broader national support, losing the popular vote only because his opponent rolled up very large margins in a small number of southern states. Given that violence and fraud prevented many blacks and white Republicans from voting in Southern states in these elections, each could legitimately claim a broader popular mandate than their respective opponents. [3]


[edit] Maintains the federal character of the nation
The United States of America is a federal coalition; it consists of component states, each of which are joined in an alliance with what has, traditionally, been a small, state-controlled central government. Proponents of the current system argue that the "collective opinion" of even a small state merits attention not to be entirely overshadowed simply by a small portion of a very populous state. For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era, most states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.[4]


[edit] Enhances status of minority groups
Far from decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that, by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and special interests.
Encourages stability through the two-party system
Many proponents of the electoral college see its negative effect on emergent third parties as a good thing. They believe it protects the most powerful office in the country from control by what these proponents view as regional minorities until they can moderate their views to win broad, long-term support from across the entire nation. Critics of this argument, disagree with the statement that emerging third parties are a bad thing.[4]


Turnout related factors
The Electoral College mitigates against the influence of factors that can affect voter turnout. A major snow storm in a region of the country could suppress voter turnout there. States with gubernatorial or senate races of a high interest level will likely have a higher than normal turnout. Under a popular vote system, such turnout variations would influence the relative strength of a state's vote, while with the electoral college, such variations do not affect the states' relative influence on the national outcome. On the other hand, this means that individual voters from states with an above-average turnout are regularly disadvantaged against voters from low turnout states.
Isolation of Election Problems
Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of potential election fraud or other problems to the state where such occurs. The College prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. Recounts, for instance, occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide. Similarly, the College acts to isolate less malicious election problems to the state in which they occur.[
Maintains Separation of Powers
The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.

Death or unsuitability of a candidate
While it is common to think of the electoral votes as numbers, the college is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars of the party whose candidate wins each state). If a candidate were to die or become in some other way unsuitable to serve as President or Vice President, these electors can choose a suitable replacement who would most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won the election. The time period of such a death or unsuitability that is covered extends from before election day (many states cannot change ballots at a late stage) until the day the electors vote, the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December.

In the election of 1872, Democratic candidate Horace Greeley did in fact die before the meeting of the electoral college, resulting in Democratic disarray; the electors who were to have voted for Greeley split their votes across several candidates, including three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. It hardly mattered, however, as President Ulysses S. Grant, the Republican incumbent, had already won an absolute majority of electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was no pressure upon these electors to agree on a replacement candidate. There has never been a case of a candidate of the winning party dying, so the unity of the winning party's electors in such a situation has never been tested.

In the election of 1912, after the Republicans had renominated President Taft and Vice President Sherman, Sherman died shortly before the election, too late to change the names on the ballot, thus causing Sherman to be listed there posthumously. That ticket finished third behind the Democrats (Woodrow Wilson) and the Progressives (Theodore Roosevelt), and the 8 electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast for Nicholas M. Butler.


Reform proposals

Current proposed legislative adjustment
Legislation is currently before Congress which would add a congressional seat to Utah, give Washington DC a voting seat, and would therefore give Utah 1 additional Electoral College vote. The total number of Electoral College votes would then be 539; the majority would still be 270. The additional congressional seat would be permanent, and reapportioned normally after the 2010 census.


Proportional vote
The primary proposal of this type is for states to implement a proportional vote system. Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected to represent only the plurality vote. As an example, consider the 2000 election, in which the George W. Bush / Richard Cheney (Republican) and Albert Gore Jr. / Joseph Lieberman (Democrat) tickets were the primary contenders, with the Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (Green) ticket taking a small but noteworthy minority. In California, the approximate proportion of votes for these tickets was 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Under the current system, all 54 electoral votes were for Gore/Lieberman. Under a simple proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke.

As a practical matter, this system would be very difficult to implement. According to the Constitution, the state legislatures decide how electors are chosen. It is usually against the interest of an individual state to switch to a method of proportional allocation because it reduces that state's influence in the Electoral College. This can be illustrated by the case of Colorado, which in 2004 voted down an initiative on its 2004 ballot, Amendment 36, which would have instituted a system of proportional allocation of electors beginning immediately with the 2004 election. Had the proposal passed, Colorado would not have been a swing state in 2008, no matter how closely contested. The state's nine electoral votes would almost certainly end up divided 5-4, no matter which candidate wins. Thus, winning the Colorado popular vote would only give the successful candidate one additional electoral vote over his or her opponent instead of nine.

A perceived problem with dividing electoral votes proportionally is that it would be harder for a candidate to achieve a majority of the electoral vote, since a proportional system would enable a third party candidate to win electoral votes. If this system had been used in 1992 and 1996, and all electors had voted as pledged, there would have been no winner at all, and the House of Representatives would have chosen the president, and the Senate would have selected the Vice President. In 1996 Robert Dole would almost certainly have been the House winner, and Jack Kemp the Senate, as well, despite receiving significantly fewer votes than Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In 2000, Al Gore would have received 269 electoral votes, George W. Bush 263, and Ralph Nader 6. If all electors voted as pledged, the Presidential race would have gone to the House, and Bush likely would have won, but the Vice Presidential decision in the Senate would have likely split 51–50 for Lieberman, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
Maine–Nebraska method
Other observers argue that the current electoral rules of Maine and Nebraska should be extended nationwide. As previously noted, the winner in each of those two states is only guaranteed two of Maine's four and Nebraska's five electoral votes, with the winner of each Congressional district in those states receiving one electoral vote. Using the California example again, Gore won 33 of the state's Congressional districts and the state overall, while Bush won 19 Congressional districts. The state's electoral votes would then have gone 35–19 for Gore.

However, this kind of allocation would still make it possible for the loser of the popular vote to become president. If every state used the Maine–Nebraska system, George W. Bush would have won in 2000 by an even larger Electoral College majority than he did with winner-take-all.[citation needed] Also, dividing electoral votes by House district winners would create yet another incentive for partisan gerrymandering. If a district system had been used in 1960, Richard Nixon would have been elected, despite losing the popular vote.

Another perceived problem with this suggestion is that it would actually further increase the advantage of small states. In winner-take-all, the small states' disproportionately high number of electors is partially offset by the fact that large states with their big electoral blocks are such a highly desirable boon to a candidate that large swing states actually receive much more attention during the campaign than smaller states. In proportional representation or Maine–Nebraska, this advantage of the large states would be gone.

Yet another argument with both Maine–Nebraska and proportional representation is that even if it is considered superior as a nationwide system, winner-take-all generally maximizes the power of an individual state and thus while it might be in the interest of the nation, it is not in the interest of the state to adopt any other system. Since the United States constitution gives the states the power to choose their method of appointing the electors, nationwide Maine–Nebraska without a constitutional amendment mandating it seems unlikely, and the passage of such an amendment seems equally unlikely since the House delegations of the largest states (against whose interests such a system would be), taken together, easily surpass the one third of the House size that is needed to block a constitutional amendment.


Abolishing the non-proportional electors ("drop 2")
Another proposed reform is to make the number of electors that each state has the same as its number of Representatives (effectively the same as the current system, except taking two electoral votes from each state). This plan, sometimes called "drop 2," could still be seen as inherently unfair, as some of the least populous states would be proportionally overrepresented while some of the slightly more populous single-representative states would be significantly underrepresented (for example, Wyoming, the least populous state, has 1 Representative for 510,000 inhabitants; Montana has 1 Representative for 935,000 inhabitants; compare this to California, which averages one Representative for each 681,000 Californians).

Proponents of this suggestion say that this will preserve the Electoral College's benefits and make the system more democratic at the same time. Others say this will remove the extra power given to the small states intended to make elections more fair and there would still exist the phenomenon of non-swing states being ignored.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has proposed decreasing the number of electors in the Electoral College from 538 to 438, with each state allotted the same number of votes as their number of representatives in the House of Representatives (with three votes for the District of Columbia). Each state would be required to use a "winner-take-all" system. Then, 100 votes would automatically be given to the winner of the national popular vote. Schlesinger felt that this would maintain the stability of a two-party system (as a "winner-take-all system" already does), while virtually guaranteeing that the person who wins the national popular vote would automatically win the Presidential election.

Interstate compact
A fourth proposal calls for an interstate compact whereby parties agree to allocate their electors to the winner of the national, popular vote. It would establish a direct vote and effectively circumvent the Electoral College system.

The proposal centers on Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which provides, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." It is unclear which clause takes precedence here.)^ Many Partial versions of this plan have emerged over the years.

Detractors have identified a collective action problem inherent in implementation of such a plan. Candidate attention on battleground states may benefit those states in terms of promised policy and resources. As such, those states have a disincentive to sign on where doing so would make them relatively less attractive to presidential campaigns. The National Popular Vote plan attempts to address this problem by providing that the present manner of allocating electors shall remain in force until so many states have signed on as to account for a majority of electoral votes.



Peace