About the Electoral College

The following material is excerpted by the LWV DC from Choosing the President 2004, published by the League of Women Voters of the United States.

In the beginning the Electoral College had considerable power in making an independent choice among the candidates for president and vice president. But today, the sole function of the Electoral College is to confirm the decision made by American voters at the ballot box.

HOW DOES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORK?

Under the Constitution, each state is authorized to choose electors for president and vice president; the number of electors per state is equal to the combined number of US senators and representatives from that state. The Electoral College thus includes 535 electors - that's one elector for every member of Congress - plus 3 electors from the District of Columbia, for a grand total of 538.

When voters choose a presidential ticket including the presidential and vice presidential candidate, they are actually voting for electors pledged to this ticket. In all but two states, the ticket that wins a plurality of the votes - in other words, more votes than any other candidate-- wins all of that state's electors. (In Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the state's popular vote gets two electoral votes; the others are awarded according to who wins each congressional district.) This winner-take all system is what drives candidates to focus so intently in their campaigning on states with large populations and, consequently, large numbers of electors.

To be elected to the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority (270) of the electoral votes. The vice president is elected by the same indirect, state-by state method, but the electors vote separately for the two offices.

If no presidential candidate receives a majority, the House of Representatives picks the winner from the top three vote getters, with each state's delegation to the House casting only one vote, regardless of its size. This has happened twice in U.S. history - in 1800 and 1824. (Note for DC readers: The District of Columbia, with no voting representation in the House, would have no role in this final vote). If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, the Senate picks the winner from the top two vote getters (same here for DC - i.e., no vote).

DO WE REALLY NEED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE:

Over the years, Congress has debated a number of changes in the Electoral College system. Most of these would require enactment of a constitutional amendment, although individual states can change their own laws governing how they choose electors.

Some people suggest we keep the Electoral College but eliminate the. winner-take-all rule so that a state's electors would better reflect the preferences of all the voters in the state. Under this scenario, a state's electors would either be chosen on a congressional district basis or simply assigned to the candidates based on the percentage of the popular vote each received in the state. For example, if Candidate X received 20 percent of the popular vote in Arizona, that person would be awarded 20 percent of the state's electoral votes.

These changes might bring the electoral vote more in line with the popular vote, but voters still would be electing the president indirectly. The Electoral College, in other words, would still exist. In the 1970s, Congress debated a proposal to eliminate the Electoral College. But that was defeated in the Senate, and since then, proposals to reform or abolish the Electoral College have gained little traction on Capitol Hill. A major reason we still have the Electoral College is that it gives the smaller population states a bigger say in the election than they would have under direct election of the president. It's not likely that these states will voluntarily give up their extra influence over the choice of president. Yet that's precisely what they would have to do for a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College to pass.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: PRO AND CON

PRO

CON

It Ain't Broke, so Don't fix it: For the past one hundred years, the Electoral College has functioned without a problem and without much complaint from the public in every presidential election through two world wars, a major economic depression and several periods of civil unrest.

It Fosters the Two-Party System: The winnertake-all system (in all but two states) generally means that third party and independent candidates get few electoral votes. As a result, the Electoral College inhibits the rise of splinter parties that can contribute to political instability and deadlock. (Note: Some people use this argument against the Electoral College, saying its bias against third party and independent candidates locks them out of the process and inhibits debate.)

It Gives Added Power to Minority Groups: Because of the winner-take-all system, a relatively small number of voters in a state can make the difference in determining which candidate gets that state's electoral votes. This gives well-organized minority groups a chance to have a profound influence on the election by getting their voters to the poles.

It promotes a Federal System of Government: The Electoral College was designed to reflect each state's choice for the presidency and vice presidency. To abolish it in favor of a nationwide popular election of the president would strike at the very heart of our federal system of government, which reserves important political powers to the states.

It ignores the Popular Vote: The Electoral College doesn't base its decision on the popular vote across the country but on which candidates won which states. As a result, there's a chance that someone could be elected president without receiving more popular votes than any other candidates. Two candidates in the 19th century as well as George W. Bush in 2000 were elected president without winning the popular vote.

It Discourages Voter Turnout: The Electoral College system makes many people feel that their vote doesn't make a difference. Voters might be inclined to skip voting ... if it's clear from the news and the polls that Candidate X is bound to win their state.

It Violates the One-Person One-Vote Ideal: Each state has a minimum of three electors, regardless of its population. This gives residents of the smallest states, which based on their population might otherwise be entitled to just one or two electors, more influence than residents of larger states. It Doesn't Require Electors to Vote the Way they Pledged to:

It rarely happens, but there's nothing preventing electors from defecting from the candidate to whom they are pledged. The main danger of "faithless electors" is that the candidate who wins the popular vote could wind up one or two votes short of an Electoral Majority and the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives.