electoral college.pdf

7/30/2019 electoral college.pdf

1/35


2/35

The 50 States and the District of Columbia by

Electoral College Weight

and by Conventional View

MAINE

VERMON

T

NEWHAM

PSHIRE

NEWYOR

KMAS

SACHUS

ETTS

CONNEC

TICUT

RHODE

ISLAND

PENNSYLV

ANIA

NEWJER

SEY

DELAWAR

E

MARYLAN

D

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

OHIO

INDIANAILLINOIS

WISCONSIN

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE NOR

THCAROL

INA

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

FLORIDA

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

TEXAS

MISSOURI

IOWA

NORTHDAKOTA

NEBRASKA

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

NEWMEXICO

COLORADO

WYOMING

MONTANA

IDAHO

UTAH

ARIZONA

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

OREGON

WASHINGTON

DC

HAWAII

ALASKA

SOUTH DAKOTA

MIN NESOTA

MIC

HIG

AN

ARKANSAS SOUTH

CAROLINA

7

11

10

10

10

10

17

34

27

955

3

3

3

3

3

3

3 611

11

11

12

15

15

15

13

21

20

21

31

6

8

86 9

7

7

7

3

4

4

4

4

4

55

5

9

5

5


3/35

International Information Programs:

Coordinator Jeremy F. CurtinExecutive Editor Jonathan Margolis

Creative Director George ClackEditor-in-Chie Richard W. HuckabyManaging Editor Bruce OdesseyProduction Manager Susan L. Doner

Assistant Production Manager Chloe D. EllisWeb Producer Janine Perry

Copy Editor Kathleen Hug

Photo Editor Ann Monroe JacobsCover Design Vincent HughesGraphic Design Vincent HughesReerence Specialists Anita N. Green

George Burkes

Front Cover: Vincent Hughes. Graph 2003,

The New York Times . All Rights Reser ved.

The Bureau o International Inormation Programso the U.S. Department o State publishes a monthly

electronic journal under the eJournal USAlogo. Thesejournals examine major issues acing the United Statesand the international community, as well as U.S. society,values, thought, and institutions.

One new journal is published monthly in English and isollowed by versions in French, Portuguese, Russian, andSpanish. Selected editions also appear in Arabic, Chinese,and Persian. Each journal is catalogued by volume andnumber.

The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarilyreect the views or policies o the U.S. government. TheU.S. Department o State assumes no responsibility orthe content and continued accessibility o Internet sitesto which the journals link; such responsibility residessolely with the publishers o those sites. Journal articles,photographs, and illustrations may be reproduced andtranslated outside the United States unless they carryexplicit copyright restrictions, in which case permissionmust be sought rom the copyright holders noted in thejournal.

The Bureau o International Inormation Programsmaintains current and back issues in several electronicormats, as well as a list o upcoming journals, at http://www.america.gov/publications/ejournals.html. Commentsare welcome at your local U.S. Embassy or at the editorialofces:

Editor, eJournal USAIIP/PUBJU.S. Department o State301 4th St. S.W.Washington, DC 20547United States o America

E-mail: [email protected]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE / SEPTEMBER 2008 /VOLUME 13 / NUMBER 9

http://www.america.gov/publications/ejournals.html


4/35

eJournaluSa 2

More than 100 million voters are likely to cast ballots in nationwide U.S. elections November

4. But only 538 men and women will elect the next president o the United States, and those

elections will take place in 50 state capitals and in Washington, D.C., December 15.

This indirect election system, called the Electoral College and devised in 1787 by the ramers o the

U.S. Constitution, puzzles Americans and non-Americans alike. It reects the ederal governing system o

allocating powers not only to a national government and to the people, but also to the states.

As John C. Fortier, author oAter the People Vote, writes in this issue oeJournal USA, the Electoral

College requires a presidential candidate to have national stature as well as broad appeal to dierentregions: One consequence o the Electoral College has been to make it hard or third parties, regional

actions, or lesser fgures to gain the presidency.

The presidential electors nearly always vote the same way in December as the voters in their states

did in November. The Electoral College winner has nearly always captured the most popular votes

nationwide. But because all but two states have winner-take-all rules, occasionally the Electoral College

winner trails another candidate in nationwide popular votes, as happened in 2000.

Political reporter David Mark describes the strategic game that ows rom the Electoral College

system. Presidential candidates pay less attention to reliably Democratic and Republican states in the

campaign. Instead they ocus their attention and scarce resources on a relatively small number o narrowlydivided states Florida and Ohio are well-known examples that decide the elections.

A lot o Americans want to change the election o the president to direct popular vote, but no such

change is imminent. Amending the Constitution requires enormous political will; only 27 amendments

have passed in more than 220 years. And such change aces resistance rom small states, which have

disproportionate representation in the Electoral College, rom supporters o a two-party system, and rom

supporters o a ederal system o government.

Whatever its merits, the Electoral College at least oers decisiveness. The House o Representatives

has had to decide only two presidential elections because no candidate achieved an Electoral College

majority, and that happened most recently in 1824.We hope that this issue oeJournal USAwill improve your understanding o the historical reasons or

the Electoral College system and how it unctions.

The Editors

About This Issue


5/35

eJournaluSa 3

HowIt works

Broad Appeal, National StatureJohn C. Fortier, researCh Fellow, ameriCanenterprise institute

The U.S. presidential election system was

established by the countrys Founding Fathersmore than 220 years ago. This system has not onlywithstood the test o time, but has also shaped U.S.politics throughout history.

How the Electoral College Functions

Winning an Electoral College MajorityDaviD mark, senioreDitor, PoliticoanDpolitiCo.Com

The Electoral College system makes electing

the president o the United States much morecomplicated than simply counting all o the popularvotes. The major political parties have to cratstrategies or winning the ew swing states thatcan determine the election.

A Day in the Life of an ElectorBruCe oDessey, managing eDitor, eJournaluSa

Timothy Willard, one o the 538 presidentialelectors rom 2004, recounts his experience. Hiscandidate lost.

HowIt stIrs Controversy

When the Electoral Vote and thePopular Vote Differthomas h. neale, speCialistin ameriCannational government, CongressionalresearCh serviCe

Four times in U.S. history, the Electoral Collegesystem resulted in election o a candidate orpresident who had received ewer popular votesnationwide than another candidate.

Electoral College Reform? Not So EasyDaviD luBlin, proFessoroF government,ameriCan university

Reorming the Electoral College system or electingthe U.S. president would require enormous eortand a consensus that does not now exist.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / VOLUME 13 / NUMBER 9

http://usino.state.gov/pub/ejournalusa.htm

12

5

17

The Electoral College

9

15

22


6/35

eJournaluSa 4

HowtHe world vIews It

Electoral Systems in InternationalPerspectiveanDrewellis, DireCtoroF operations,international instituteForDemoCraCyanDeleCtoral assistanCe (international iDea)

The U.S. Electoral College has eatures commonto other election systems around the world butcombined in a unique way.

The Electoral College: A French ViewanDr kaspi, proFessoroF history, universityparis i panthon-sorBonne

The U.S. system or electing the president remainsmysterious to the French, but some elements o thetwo countries political systems actually seem to beconverging.

Across the Atlantic, Some SurprisingSimilaritiesphilip Davies, proFessoroF ameriCan stuDies,

De montFort universityThe U.S. and British election systems are quitedierent, but they sometimes produce oddlysimilar outcomes.

Additional Resources

25

29

31

27


7/35

eJournaluSa 5

The U.S. presidential election system was established by thecountrys Founding Fathers more than 220 years ago. Thissystem has not only withstood the test o time, but has alsoshaped U.S. politics throughout history.

John C. Fortier is a research ellow at the AmericanEnterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and the author o abook about the Electoral College,Ater the People Vote.

Many Americans do not understand every nuanceabout their presidential selection system,and particularly about what is known as the

Electoral College, which determines which individualsbecome their countrys president and vice president. Butthey do understand the big picture. Namely, each U.S.state is assigned a number o electors, with the mostheavily populated states having the most electors andthe least populated states the ewest. Each citizen votesin his or her home state, and the winner o the popular

vote in all but two o the states receives all the votes o itsstates electors. The presidential candidate who receivesa majority o the electoral votes becomes the presidento the United States, and his running mate the vicepresident.

O course, there are some additional complexities othe presidential selection system. I the electoral votes aresplit among many candidates or i two candidates endup with the same number o electoral votes, the House

o Representatives selects the president. It is also possiblethat the national popular vote could avor one candidateand the Electoral College another. But these scenarios arevery unlikely. In almost every recent election, the winningcandidate has won the popular vote, a majority o states,and the required majority in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is unpopular with a majority oAmericans. Polls show that most Americans would preera direct national popular vote because they believe thatsystem would be more democratic.

Broad Appeal, National StatureJohn C. Fortier

APImages/JaeC.Hong

HowIt works

The Electoral College encourages presidential candidates with broad national appeal and discourages third political parties.


8/35

eJournaluSa 6

However, the ramers o the U.S. Constitution, whoestablished the Electoral College, did not view it as an eliteinstitution designed to skirt public opinion. They believedthat their system o choosing a president rested on thesentiments o the people.

In designing a presidential selection system basedon the will o the people, the ramers also addressed twoother concerns. First, they intended to keep the presidencyindependent o the legislature and o the states. Second,they sought to ensure the election o a national igure tothe presidency.

In addition to these two intended consequences, theElectoral College today has taken on another role notenvisioned by the ramers as a bulwark supporting thetwo-party system in the United States.

PromotIngan IndePendent PresIdent

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Americas

Founding Fathers debated many alternative ways to electa president. They settled on the Electoral College systemonly near the end o their deliberations. Their choice o asystem or presidential selection was related to the powersand composition o the legislative branch o government,the Congress. Only ater the ounders agreed on the shapeo Congress did they begin serious consideration o howto choose a president.

A compromise as to the orm o the Congress verymuch aected the look o the Electoral College. Thegreat issue o the day was a debate between small statesand large states as to how each would be represented in

the legislature. The compromise was to have two housesin the legislature the House o Representatives andthe Senate. In the House o Representatives, states wouldreceive representation based on population, and eachstates representatives would be elected directly by thepeople, albeit with a signiicantly more limited ranchisethan we have today. In the Senate, each state would haveequal representation. The small state o Delaware and thelarge state o Virginia would each have two senators, andthese senators would be elected by each states legislature.Under a later constitutional amendment, senators are nowelected directly by the people.

Once a compromise over Congress had beenbrokered, the ramers o the Constitution sought toensure that the president would have suicient powersand stature to be independent o Congress. The ramersideas were directly opposite to the thinking that inormsparliamentary systems. In the American system, thepresident would not come out o Congress or be theleader o a congressional party. The ramers believed ina separation o powers. I Congress were to select thepresident, the president would be beholden to Congress,especially i the president had to seek re-election beore

the Congress. The ramers worried that a presidentelected by Congress would so curry avor with theelecting institution that he would be a mere puppet o thelegislature rather than an independent voice.

Similarly, the ramers did not allow the states tochoose the president directly. Instead, they devised asystem the Electoral College in which electorswould be appointed rom each state. The state legislatureswould have a say in how the electors were chosen. Inthe earliest presidential elections, some states provided

APImages/MarkLennihan

George Washington, depicted taking oath o ofce as the frst U.S.

president, was the only president who aced no election opposition.


9/35

eJournaluSa 7

that the people would elect the electors; some prescribedpopular elections in districts, which could result in a statesplitting its electors among several candidates; and some

state legislatures appointed the electors directly, without apopular election. In the irst 40 years o the republic, moststates moved to give the people the right to elect theirelectors, and they moved to a system whereby the winnero the popular vote in each state would win all o theelectoral votes rom the state.

One other eature o the electors bears noting.The electors rom each state meet to cast their votes orpresident, but all the state electors never meet together asone single national body.

The allocation o electors to the states mirroredthe compromise in Congress, with each state assigned a

number o electors based on the number o members inthe House o Representatives and the number o senators.Thus, each o the smallest states would have three electors,one or its representative in the House o Representativesplus two or its two senators. Today, the most populousU.S. state, Caliornia, has 55 electors 53 or itsrepresentatives in the House o Representatives andtwo or its two senators. The inal allocation is broadlyproportional to population, with the largest states havingmore electors than the smallest, although small states aresomewhat overrepresented in the Electoral College due tothe principle o state equality in the Senate.

eleCtInga natIonal FIgure

The worst-kept secret among the ramers o theConstitution was that George Washington would be theirst president o the United States. He was a consensusnational hero, and he ran successully or president twicewith no opposition.

But the ramers worried that ater Washington therewere ew men o national stature who would attract thevotes o states that were isolated by poor transportation

systems and parochial attachments. The original ElectoralCollege was designed to encourage the selection o anational igure. Under the original Electoral College,electors could each cast two votes, but only one o thesevotes could go to a candidate rom their home state. Thecandidate with the most votes would become president,and the candidate with the second greatest number wouldbecome vice president.

The ramers believed that electors might cast one voteor a avorite son rom their state, but that they would

have to consider a widely known national candidate orthe other vote.

In addition to this eature, the original Electoral

College presumed that there would be no political partiesor political tickets o a president and vice president.The person with the second-highest number o votesmight come rom a dierent region or action than thepresident. In todays terms, it would be the equivalent oelecting Republican George W. Bush president in 2004and making the runner-up, Democrat John Kerry, the vicepresident.

The system did work to encourage presidentialelectors to vote or national igures. John Adams andThomas Jeerson emerged as nationally known rivalswithin George Washingtons administration.

But the ramers conception o a government withoutpolitical parties broke down quickly. John Adams andAlexander Hamilton became identiied as Federalists,and Thomas Jeerson and James Madison as DemocraticRepublicans (the orerunner o todays Democratic Party).The original Electoral College, in which each elector casttwo votes, did not work well with such a party system.

In the election o 1800, Thomas Jeerson ran aspresident or the Democratic Republican Party, andAaron Burr ran as his vice president. This political ticketbeat the Federalist incumbent president, John Adams,and his running mate, Charles Pinckney. But all o theelectors who voted once or Jeerson also voted or Burr.While the intention o everyone was or Jeerson to bepresident and Burr vice president, the two ended up ina tie. The House o Representatives, still in the controlo the Federalists, then had to decide the election. Thisled to machinations by the Federalist Party in Congressand by Burr, and there was a period o uncertainty as towho would become president. Ultimately, cooler headsprevailed, and Jeerson was elected president by theHouse. But the experience led to the 12th Amendment tothe Constitution, which provides that each elector casts

one vote or president and the other or vice president.

two-Partysystem

The ramers did not conceive o a political partysystem and certainly did not design the Electoral Collegeto promote one. But over time, the Electoral College hasstrengthened the two-party system o Democrats andRepublicans.


10/35

eJournaluSa 8

First, states moved to make their elections winner-take-all. In a winner-take-all system, a party must bestrong enough to win the popular vote in a state, not just

get a noticeable percentage.Second, the Electoral College makes it necessary or

parties to win states in multiple regions o the country.One could not gain a majority by just winning theSouth or the Northeast. And in act, almost every recentsuccessul presidential candidate has won a majority o thestates.

Ater the 1800 election when the Electoral Collegewas changed, only once has the presidential electionailed to produce a winner with a majority o theelectors, thereby sending the election to the House oRepresentatives or a decision. That was in 1824, when

the early party system was evolving.In 1860, Republican Abraham Lincoln won election

with a plurality o the popular vote, less than 40 percent,beneiting rom a Democratic Party split and multiplecandidates, but he still received a majority o the electors.

From time to time, third-party candidates, such asormer President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 runningagainst his protg, President William Howard Tat, wonstates and electoral votes. But those third-party candidateshave never won the presidency, and the parties tendedto die out quickly as they were not able to sustain thenational eort needed to win the presidency or to winsigniicant seats in Congress.

Since 1972, no third-party candidate has won amajority in a single state. Even candidate Ross Perot, who

won nearly 20 percent o the popular vote in 1992, wasnot strong enough to win a plurality o votes in any singlestate.

tHe testoF tIme

There have been many movements to change theElectoral College and to adopt a straight national popularvote. Since its creation, the Electoral College has beenchanged ormally by constitutional amendment andinormally as various party systems that interact with ithave come and gone. The ramers o the Constitutionwould recognize todays Electoral College as an institutionthat is consistent with the separation o powers, withthe president elected independently o Congress and the

states.The ramers did not oresee the rise o political

parties, but they wanted national igures in the oice opresident, and one consequence o the Electoral Collegehas been to make it hard or third parties, regionalactions, or lesser igures to gain the presidency.

All in all, the basic thrust o the Electoral Collegeto elect a president with broad popular appeal, notdependent on Congress, and with national stature stilloperates today.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reect the views orpolicies o the U.S. government.


11/35

eJournaluSa 9

The Electoral College is not a place. It is a processthat began as part o the original design o the U.S.Constitution. The Electoral College was established by theFounding Fathers o the United States as a compromisebetween election o the president by Congress and electionby direct popular vote. The people o the United Statesvote or electors, who then vote or the president. TheNational Archives is the ederal government agency thatoversees the process.

Each state is allocated a number of electors equalto the number o its U.S. senators (always two) plus thenumber o its U.S. representatives, which is based on thecensus o population conducted every 10 years. Currently,the populous state o Caliornia has 55 electors, while astate with ewer residents, such as North Dakota, mighthave only three or our.

How the Electoral College Functions

APImages/StevenSenne

Presidential electors take the oath o ofce in December 2000 at the Massachusetts State House in Boston.

The Constitutional Basis

Excerpt rom Article II, Section 1, o the U.S. Constitution

The executive Power shall be vested in a President o the United States o America. He shall hold his Oice

during the Term o our Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen or the same Term, be elected, as ollows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereo may direct, a Number o Electors, equal to

the whole Number o Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator

or Representative, or Person holding an Oice o Trust or Proit under the United States, shall be appointed an

Elector.


12/35

eJournaluSa 10

The Electoral College now consists of 538 electors(one or each o the 435 members o the House oRepresentatives and the 100 senators, plus three or theDistrict o Columbia, the national capital, Washington).A majority o 270 electoral votes is required to elect the

president and vice president.

The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisionsrelating to the qualiications o electors. Article II providesthat no member o Congress or Person holding anOice o Trust or Proit under the United States shall beappointed an elector.

The process for selectingelectors varies state by state. Generally,state political party leaders nominate

electors at their state party conventionsor by a vote o the state partyscentral committee. Electors are otenselected to recognize their service anddedication to their political party.They may be state-elected oicials,party leaders, or persons who havean ailiation with the presidentialcandidate.

The voters in each state choosethe electors pledged to a presidential

candidate on the day o the generalelection the Tuesday ater the irstMonday in November (November 4in 2008). The electors names may ormay not appear on the ballot belowthe name o the candidates running orpresident, depending on the procedurein each state.

The electors in each state meeton the irst Monday ater the secondWednesday in December (December15 in 2008) to select the president andvice president o the United States.

No constitutional provision orederal law requires electors to votein accordance with the popular vote

in their state. But some state laws provide that so-calledaithless electors be subject to ines or be disqualiied orcasting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substituteelector. The U.S. Supreme Court has not speciicallyruled on the question o whether pledges and penalties

or ailure to vote as pledged may be enorced under theConstitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted orailing to vote as pledged.

Today it is rare for electors to disregard the popularvote by casting their electoral vote or someone other thantheir partys candidate. Electors generally hold a leadershipposition in their party or were chosen to recognize years oloyal service to the party. Throughout U.S. history, morethan 99 percent o electors have voted as pledged.

The Constitution sets out the way the Electoral College works, with little direction about who can

serve as electors.

APImages


13/35

eJournaluSa 11

The Electoral College vote totals determine thepresident and vice president, not the statistical plurality ormajority a candidate may have in the nationwide popular

vote totals. Four times in U.S. history 1824, 1876,1888, and 2000 the candidate who collected the mostpopular votes nationwide ailed to win the majority oelectoral votes.

In 2008, 48 out of the 50 states and the District ofColumbia award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.For example, all 55 o Caliornias electoral votes go tothe winner o that states popular vote, even i the margino victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent. Only twostates, Nebraska and Maine, do not ollow the winner-take-all rule. In those states, there could be a split o

electoral votes among candidates through a proportionalallocation o votes.

Congress meets in joint session in January ofthe year ollowing the presidential election to count theelectoral votes.

If no presidential candidate wins a majority ofelectoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitutionprovides or the presidential election to be decided bythe House o Representatives. The House would selectthe president by majority vote, choosing rom the threecandidates who received the greatest number o electoralvotes. The vote would be taken by state, with eachstate delegation having one vote. I no vice presidentialcandidate wins a majority o electoral votes, the Senatewould select the vice president by majority vote, with each

senator choosing rom the two candidates who receivedthe greatest number o electoral votes.

The House has selected the president twice, in1800 and 1824. The Senate has selected the vice presidentonce, in 1836.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200years, more than 700 proposals have been introduced inCongress to reorm or eliminate the Electoral College.There have been more proposals or constitutionalamendments on changing the Electoral College than onany other subject.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College

system may be aected by attitudes toward third parties ones other than the Democratic and Republicanparties. Third parties have not ared well in the ElectoralCollege system. In 1948 and 1968, third-party candidateswith regional appeal won blocs o electoral votes in theSouth, which may have aected the outcome but didnot come close to seriously challenging the major partywinner. The last third-party candidate to make a strongshowing was ormer Republican President TheodoreRoosevelt in 1912. He inished a distant second inelectoral and popular votes (taking 88 o the 266 electoralvotes then needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19percent o the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he didnot win any electoral votes since he was not particularlystrong in any state.

Source: The National Archives.


14/35

eJournaluSa 12

The Electoral College system makes electing the presidento the United States much more complicated than simplycounting all o the popular votes. The major political partieshave to crat strategies or winning the ew swing states thatcan determine the election.

David Mark is senior editor atPolitico and politico.com, print and online publications covering national U.S.politics.

Americans cast ballots or president o the UnitedStates every our years, but, strange as it maysound, there are no national elections. Rather,

Americans vote or national oice in 51 individualelections in the 50 states and the District o Columbia(the capital city, Washington). Added together, these talliescomprise the Electoral College and decide presidentialcampaigns.

Piecing together an Electoral College majority is acomplex task. Presidential campaigns spend countlesshours devising strategies to reach the magic number o270 electoral votes, a majority o the 538 total. Buildingan Electoral College majority inevitably means theexpenditure o precious time and resources in one state

at the expense o another. In the inal weeks beoreelection day, campaigns must make diicult decisionsdaily about the states that should be seriously targetedand those to be abandoned. Picking the wrong states inwhich to campaign means the dierence between winningthe White House and being out in the political cold onInauguration Day, January 20.

Still, political realities mean that the majority ostates, up to 30 or so, are probably saely Democratic or

Republican and not in serious contention. Spending timeand money in these sae states would be a serious waste oreither campaign.

statIC PlayIng FIeld

The irst decade o the 21st century has shownthere to be ewer and ewer obvious targets than inpast presidential elections. Remarkably little turnoveroccurred in the electoral map between the 2000 and 2004presidential elections. In act, only three states switchedsides: Iowa and New Mexico, which went rom supportingDemocratic nominee Al Gore in 2000 to RepublicanPresident George W. Bush in 2004; and New Hampshire,which backed Bush in 2000 but went or Democraticnominee John Kerry our years later. That makes or oneo the most static presidential maps in recent memory.

Yet in 2004, 13 states were decided by seven or ewerpercentage points: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan,Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, NewMexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Soin 2008, campaign strategists or Republican nomineeJohn McCain and Democratic standard-bearer Barack

Obama are looking or ways to expand the playing ieldand to put more states Electoral College votes in play.Obamas plan, or instance, calls or broadening

the electoral map by challenging McCain in typicallyRepublican states, including North Carolina, Missouri,and Montana. McCains strategy, meanwhile, aims tocompete or states that have recently voted Democratic,such as Pennsylvania where Obama was soundly beatenin the primary election or the Democratic nominationby Senator Hillary Clinton and Michigan, where

Winning an Electoral College Majority

David Mark

Democratic nominee Barack Obama campaigns in Ohio, where he lost theDemocratic primary election to Hillary Clinton.

APImages/MadalynRuggiero


15/35

eJournaluSa 13

Obama did not compete in the primary. Oicials romboth campaigns conidently predict that they will stealstates that have been in the other partys column in recent

elections.

eleCtoral College strategIes

Obamas route to the necessary 270 electoral votesstarts with holding every state won by John Kerry in2004 and ocusing on a handul o states that Obamaadvisers think are ripe or conversion. Kerry won 252electoral votes. To pick up 18more electoral votes, Obamawill target Iowa, Virginia, NorthCarolina, New Mexico, Nevada,

and Colorado, among others. Hislist also includes Ohio, where helost the primary to Clinton butwhich, in 2006 midterm elections,shited dramatically toward theDemocrats. For his part, McCainhopes voters will help him hold onto Ohio, which has been criticalto Republican success in the pasttwo presidential elections, andconvert Michigan, Pennsylvania,and Wisconsin to the Republicancolumn.

But sometimes campaignsElectoral College state-targetingstrategies are not everything theyseem. Campaigns oten engage inelaborate ruses to make it appear asi they are spending serious amountso money to win a state, when in reality they have no suchintentions. The idea is to orce the rival campaigns tospend precious time and money in states they would haveordinarily considered sae to play deense in their home

territory.A classic example o this head ake strategy cameduring the heated closing days o the 2000 presidentialcampaign, when Democratic Vice President Al Gore ranto succeed his boss, President Bill Clinton, while theRepublican nominee was Texas Governor George W.Bush. In October 2000, just weeks beore election day,the Bush campaign made the questionable decision to runexpensive television and radio ads in Caliornia, which,with 54 electoral votes (it now has 55), is the mother

lode o presidential politics. The Bush team spent morethan $1 million advertising in Caliornias expensivemedia markets Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San

Diego and Republican vice presidential nominee DickCheney spent a precious day barnstorming the state in thecampaigns closing days

The Gore campaign, however, did not take the bait.Conident o strong Democratic support in Caliornia, theDemocratic team ocused its inite resources elsewhere.That turned out to be a smart strategy, as Gore wonCaliornia handily, with 53 percent o the vote to Bushs

42 percent.But in Ohio, the Gore

campaign pulled out ar too earlyand denied itsel the potential

opportunity to win the states21 electoral votes. While Gorescampaign had expected a largeRepublican victory in Ohio, itturned out that Bush won byonly 3.5 percentage points. Withmore attention, the statewideresult might very well have beendierent, and a victory would havemore than ensured the presidencyor Gore.

The 2008 nominees havesimilarly mentioned several statesas possibilities to be competitive;in reality, though, they will likelynot be so. Obamas aides have saidsome states where they intendto campaign such as Georgia,Missouri, Montana, and North

Carolina might ultimately not turn rom Republican toDemocratic. But the result o making an eort there couldorce McCain to spend money or send him to campaignin what should be sae ground, rather than using those

resources in crucial battleground states such as Ohio.

wInnertake all

For presidential campaign strategists, one o the mostrustrating aspects o the Electoral College is the rule inalmost every state that the winner o the statewide votegets all o that states electoral votes, no matter how closethe margin. George W. Bush in 2000 amously wonFlorida and the presidency by 537 votes out o

APImages/CarolynKaster

Republican nominee John McCain campaigns in Ohio,

one o the closely divided states.


16/35

eJournaluSa 14

more than 6 million cast in the Sunshine State. Still, eventhat narrowest o margins, made oicial only ater 36 dayso legal wrangling and a Supreme Court decision stopping

a statewide recount, was enough to give the Republicanticket all o the states electoral votes.

In 1988, Republican nominee George H.W. Bushwon 426 Electoral College votes to 112 or MassachusettsGovernor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee,making it appear as a lopsided victory. But Bushs marginso victory in many states were relatively slim, making ora broad but shallow victory (Caliornia, 51 to 48 percent;Connecticut, 52 to 47 percent; Illinois, 51 to 49 percent;Maryland, 51 to 48 percent; Missouri, 52 to 48 percent;New Mexico, 52 to 47 percent; Pennsylvania 51 to 48percent; Vermont, 51 to 48 percent). The vote dierentials

in other Electoral College-rich states were not considerablylarger. With a campaign more responsive to attacks againstthem and being more aggressive in setting the issuesagenda, Democrats might have won.

And in 2000, Gore lost New Hampshire 48.1 percentto 46.8 percent. That proved to be a crucial marginbecause New Hampshires our electoral votes wouldhave given Gore an Electoral College majority o 271 making the disputed Florida results irrelevant. Also, avictory or Gore in his home state o Tennessee in 2000would have locked up the election. Instead, Tennessees11 electoral votes went to Bush, by about 4 percentagepoints, making Gore the irst presidential nominee tolose his home state since Democrat George McGovern in1972, and helping to cost him the presidency.

eleCtabIlItyIntHe general eleCtIon

When Democratic and Republican primary electionvoters cast ballots or their partys nominee, they otentake into consideration not only which candidate theypreer based on issues and personal qualities, but alsowhich one has the best chance or winning the general

election in November.Thats a big reason why John Kerry won the 2004Democratic presidential nomination over ormerVermont Governor Howard Dean. Early in the electioncycle, Deans urious criticism o the Iraq war and Bushadministration policies generally propelled him rom

obscurity to ront-runner in the Democratic presidentialprimary pack. His iery rhetoric struck a chord withDemocratic primary voters, who elt rustrated that

many o their partys own leaders in Congress had beenunwilling to challenge Bush aggressively.

But Deans uneven perormance on the campaigntrail and his inexperience in national politics ledDemocratic primary voters eventually to choose Kerry, asenator or nearly 20 years. Kerry was a known quantityand a serviceable, i uninspiring, speaker whom theyigured would be a tougher opponent against Bush. Inthe atermath o the primaries, a quipster said manyDemocrats dated Dean, married Kerry.

The Electoral College map became a major issue inthe 2008 Democratic presidential nomination ight. In a

race that lasted or nearly six months and wasnt decideduntil all primary and caucus states had cast ballots, HillaryClinton argued that she should be her partys nomineebecause she stood a better chance than nomination rivalBarack Obama o beating Republican nominee JohnMcCain in the general election.

Clinton pointed to her primary victories in swingstates such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Theargument seemed to hold little water with Democrats,who chose Obama as the party nominee to opposeMcCain.

Democrats will ind out November 4 whether theelectorate validates the partys nomination choice. Aterall, a winning Electoral College coalition is a constantlyshiting target or campaigns. Perhaps most vexing, it isvirtually the only acet o American government in whichthe winner o the greatest number o votes in an electionis not automatically the victor. As the Obama and McCaincampaigns work rantically in the elections inal weeksto stitch together at least 270 votes, what seems like awinning combination one day could come up short in theonly measure that ultimately counts the state-by-statecount on Election Day.



17/35

eJournaluSa 15

Timothy Willard, one o the 538 presidential electors rom2004, recounts his experience. His candidate lost.

Bruce Odessey is the managing editor or this edition oeJournal USA.

One day in December 2004, Timothy G. Willardtook a ew hours o rom his law practice inGeorgetown, Delaware, and traveled to the state

capital, Dover, to vote or president o the United States.A lot o people probably believed that the citizens

o Delaware had voted or president a month earlier, butactually they had voted or three electors pledged to voteor either Republican George W. Bush or Democrat JohnF. Kerry in the Electoral College.

Willard was a state Democratic Party stalwart,a ormer county party chairman who had served asa delegate to the national partys 2000 nominatingconvention and worked on the state partys 2004 politicalplatorm.

Delaware, one o the smallest states in the Union,had only three electoral votes in 2004. (Caliornia, thebiggest state, had 55.) Delaware coincidentally has onlythree counties, and the state Democratic Party chairmanappointed one person rom each county, including Willardrom Sussex County, to serve as a presidential elector iKerry won the popular vote in Delaware.

A Day in the Life of an Elector

Bruce Odessey

APImages/CharlieRiedel

Willards candidate, Democrat John Kerry (r ight), won in Delaware in 2004 but lost to President George W. Bush

nationally in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.


18/35

eJournaluSa 16

tHe dayIn dover

Kerry did win in Delaware, with 53 percent o thepopular vote. In act Democratic presidential candidateshave won every election in Delaware since 1988. Andso Willard got the chance to go to Dover to vote in theElectoral College on December 13, the irst Mondayater the second Wednesday in December, as the U.S.Constitution requires or electors in all the states and theDistrict o Columbia (the national capital, Washington).

At 10 a.m., Willard and his two colleagues sat in theornate chamber o the Delaware House o Representatives,selected one o them as chairperson, and then carried outtheir duties.

They received the November election oicial resultsrom the state Department o Elections and signed agroup o papers certiying the results: three electoral votesor Kerry as president, three electoral votes or Kerrysrunning mate, John Edwards, as vice president. They sent

the papers to the Delaware secretary o state or delivery tothe National Archives in Washington. A ew weeks later,the U.S. Congress oicially counted the electoral votes orpresident and vice president, including Willards.

But as everyone already knew, Bush beat Kerry 286 to 252.

CeremonIal task

Presidential electors

dont have the same kind oindependent power that theFounding Fathers seemed tohave imagined or them whencrating the Constitution in1787. By 1796, emergingpolitical parties were alreadychanging the dynamics o theElectoral College.

For Willard, the job wasceremonial. He probably didnteven think about voting or

anyone else besides John Kerry.In act, Delaware state lawprohibited him rom voting oranyone else. (No one knowsi the law is constitutionally

enorceable, but so-called aithless electors are exceedinglyrare in history anyway.)

The actual event didnt get too much attention romthe media or press or the public, Willard said. I justremember being in the House o Representatives, and thegallery was not illed.

Even so, he was proud to serve a ormal part ogoverning that needed to be done. It was a great honor tobe a part o a process, which, I think, a lot o people dontunderstand, he said.

Yet he also said that Americans should probably beexploring alternative systems to electing the president,systems that do not elect a candidate with ewernationwide popular votes than another candidate, as hasoccurred sometimes with the Electoral College.

I think we need to explore alternatives that are moreunderstandable and simpler, Willard said. Im just saying... I dont think its a good thing i people dont understand

it or have doubts about it or are cynical about it.

Courtesyo

fJoshuaDanielFranklin

Timothy Willard spent his one day on the job as a presidential elector at the Delaware State Capitol in Dover.


19/35

eJournaluSa 17

Four times in U.S. history, the Electoral College systemresulted in election o a candidate or president who hadreceived ewer popular votes nationwide than anothercandidate.

Thomas H. Neale is a specialist in American national

government who produces reports or Congress at theCongressional Research Service.

Since the irst U.S. presidential election in 1788, theElectoral College system has delivered the peopleschoice in 51 o 55 contests, but on our occasions

the Electoral College gave controversial results. Threeo these elections, 1876, 1888, and 2000, produced apresident and vice president who won a majority o the

electoral vote but ewer popular votes than their principalopponents. In 1824, there was no Electoral Collegemajority, and the House o Representatives elected thepresident.

1824: a CorruPt bargaIn?

The impending retirement o President JamesMonroe signaled a major shit in U.S. politics as theelection o 1824 approached. The two political parties othat era were called the Federalists and the DemocraticRepublicans. For the previous quarter-century, theDemocratic Republican Party had controlled the WhiteHouse, while the Federalist Party withered away. By1824, however, the Democratic Republican Party showed

When the Electoral Vote and the

Popular Vote DifferThomas H. Neale

An 1824 political cartoon portrays a crowd o citizens cheering candidates (let to right) John Quincy Adams, William

Craword, and Andrew Jackson.

LibraryofCong

ress,Prints&PhotographsDivision

HowIt stIrs Controversy


20/35

eJournaluSa 18

signs o splintering: States were expanding the right tovote, the established order was being questioned, andchange was in the air. Unable to agree on a consensus

nominee, Democratic Republican actions nominated ourcandidates: Secretary o State John Quincy Adams andTreasury Secretary William Craword, the establishmentchoices; Senator Andrew Jackson, hero o the Battle oNew Orleans; and Henry Clay, powerul speaker o theHouse o Representatives.

Ater a spirited campaign conducted by surrogatesbecause it was considered demeaning or the candidates toengage in retail politicking the results were hopelesslydivided. Jackson had the most popular and electoral votes,ollowed by Adams, then Craword and Clay, but noneo the our commanded an Electoral College majority.

Under these circumstances, the Constitution required theHouse o Representatives to choose the president, witheach state delegation casting just one vote. Furthermore,since only the three top candidates were eligible, Clay waseliminated.

By the time Congress assembled in Washington inDecember 1824, the divided election results were known,but the oicial announcement was not scheduled untilFebruary 9, 1825, so or two months the capital seethedwith political speculation and backroom maneuvers. Itbecame clear that Craword, who was recovering rom astroke, was out o the running and that the contest wouldbe decided between Adams and Jackson.

The ront-runners presented a stark contrast: Adams,a Harvard graduate rom Massachusetts in New England,was a seasoned diplomat and son o a president, whileJackson was a rough-hewn politician rom Tennessee inwhat was then the West, a military hero and a man whohad ought several duels. House Speaker Clay, who heldthe balance o power, negotiated with supporters o bothJackson and Adams, but he and the New Englander sharedsimilar policies, and both deeply mistrusted Jackson.Ater the two held a long private meeting in January,

Clays support or Adams became known. Two weekslater, a letter in a Philadelphia newspaper asserted thatClay agreed to back Adams in return or the position osecretary o state i Adams won. A storm o charges andcountercharges ollowed, with Jackson supporters accusingClay and Adams o a corrupt bargain.

On February 9, Congress assembled to count theelectoral votes. As expected, Jackson won 99 electoralvotes, 32 short o the 131 then needed to win, whileAdams claimed 84, Craword, 41, and Clay, 37. With the

results declared, the House turned to its constitutionalduty, with none other than Henry Clay presiding inhis position as speaker. At that time, when the Union

comprised 24 states, 13 state delegation votes were neededto win; early reports indicated that 12 states avoredAdams, one short o a majority.

Jackson hoped to stop Adams on the irst round,gain Craword supporters, and then put some o theNew Englanders states into play. The key was New YorkState, whose House delegation was evenly split, withone representative undecided. The morning o the countsession, Clay and Representative Daniel Webster romAdamss home state invited the wavering New Yorker toSpeaker Clays oice. Clay and Webster were amous ortheir persuasive oratory, and whatever they said must have

worked: When the roll was called, New York was in theAdams column, putting him over the top. The inal resultswere 13 state votes or Adams, 7 or Jackson, and 4 orCraword.

Eleven days later, Adams announced that Clay wouldbe his secretary o state, giving resh credence to thecorrupt bargain charge. Adams and Clay always deniedit, but, true or not, the charge overshadowed Adamsspresidency. It both enraged and energized Jackson andhis supporters, who started planning Jacksons nextpresidential campaign immediately. Four years later, theTennessean was vindicated when he soundly deeatedAdams in the 1828 election.

1876: tHe ComPromIseoF 1877

In 1876, the Republican Party o the late PresidentAbraham Lincoln (nicknamed the Grand Old Party,or GOP) had dominated the presidency or 16 years,but GOP control was in jeopardy. The country wasmired in a severe economic depression or the ourthyear in a row. President Ulysses S. Grant was retiringater two terms dominated by a succession o political

scandals. The Democrats, once disgraced by their CivilWar association with the rebellious South, had regainedstrength and conidence, winning a majority in the Houseo Representatives in 1874. And white southern voterswere demanding the withdrawal o ederal troops stationedin the ormer Conederacy to enorce Reconstruction,the ederal governments policy or guaranteeing politicalrights to the ex-slaves and saeguarding Republican stategovernments imposed ater the war.

Meeting in their national conventions, the Democrats


21/35

eJournaluSa 19

nominated Governor Samuel Tilden o New York orpresident, while the Republicans picked Ohio GovernorRutherord B. Hayes. Both men had reputations asreormers, and the two parties oered similar platormsadvocating honest government and civil service reorm.The general election campaign was dominated bymudslinging and by charge and countercharge, while thenominees remained above the ray, leaving attack politicsto surrogates and the highly partisan newspapers o theday.

More than 8 million voters turned out on electionday, November 7. By evening, results arriving bytelegraph showed a strong Democratic trend. Republicanstrongholds ell to Tilden, and by morning, he appearedto have won 17 states by a popular vote margin o at least250,000, or 184 electoral votes, at that time just oneshort o a majority. Hayes was behind with 18 states and165 electoral votes, but Republican Party hopes revivedwhen returns showed narrow leads or Hayes in Florida,Louisiana, and South Carolina, which controlled 19 votes.

Local Democrats disputed the results, asserting that ederaltroops had tainted the election; the GOP countered withclaims that black Republican voters had been kept romthe polls by orce in many places. Bitterly divided, eachstate sent two contradictory certiicates o election resultsto Congress.

A ierce battle over the disputed returns waspredicted, with supporters o both candidates threateningviolence. Congress responded in January 1877 byestablishing a bipartisan electoral commission made up

o senators, representatives, and Supreme Court justices.The commission would determine which slate o disputedelectors had the better claim. On February 1, Congressmet to count the electoral votes; the disputed returns werereerred to the commission, which painstakingly examinedeach o them. The process continued or more than amonth, but in every case the commission voted by thenarrowest margin to accept the Republican electors. OnMarch 2, the last votes were awarded to Hayes, who wasdeclared elected by a one-vote margin, 185 to Tildens 184.

In Februar y 1877, Congress counted the electoral votes ater the contested Tilden-Hayes election.

NorthWind/NorthWindPictureArchivesA

llrightsreserved


22/35

eJournaluSa 20

Despite widespread discontent amongDemocrats, the streets remained quiet: Overthe previous month, party political operatives

had worked out an agreement behind closeddoors, the Compromise o 1877. Tildenand the Democratic Party accepted a GOPvictory, while Hayes pledged to withdrawederal troops rom the states o the ormerConederacy, eectively ending Reconstruction.With the departure o the army, Republicangovernments in the South ell as ormer slaveswere prevented rom voting by legal maneuvers,intimidation, and terrorism. Loss o the votewas quickly ollowed by segregation lawsand other discrimination against blacks, and

it would be eight decades beore the nationredressed the legacy o 1877.

1888: outand In

The presidential election o 1888 saw lesso the high political drama that characterizedthe other Electoral College controversies.Incumbent President Grover Cleveland oNew York, a Democrat, was renominated ona platorm o continued civil service reormand tari reduction. The Republican Party,deenders o the tari, which beneited U.S.industry but kept consumer prices high, choseBenjamin Harrison o Indiana, grandson oPresident William Henry Harrison.

Cleveland sat out the election campaign,relying on surrogates to carry his message tothe public. Harrison, by contrast, delivereddozens o political speeches rom his home,conducting perhaps the irst ront porchcampaign. The campaign itsel may have beenone o the more corrupt in U.S. history, with

both sides accused o buying and selling votes,engaging in political dirty tricks, and adjustingelection returns to deliver votes as needed.

On November 6, more than 11 million Americanscast their votes. A close election was expected, and thereturns showed Cleveland had outpolled the Republicancandidate by 5,540,000 popular votes to 5,440,000.Harrison, however, had won the election on the strengtho a comortable electoral vote majority, 233 to 168.

What had gone wrong? Cleveland won the southernstates with huge popular vote margins but lost manynorthern ones by only a ew thousand votes each.Harrison was inaugurated without much controversyon March 4, 1889, but our years later Cleveland madeanother run, and this time he was successul, returning tothe White House in 1893.

Republican Benjamin Harrison (top) won the 1888 election by edging incumbent

Democrat Grover Cleveland in several northern states.

LibraryofCongress


23/35

eJournaluSa 21

2000: tHe suPreme Court

stePs In

Few U.S. presidentialcontests have ended asacrimoniously as the electiono 2000. Even now, ater nearlya decade, emotions run highamong committed partisans oRepublican George W. Bushand Democrat Al Gore whendiscussion turns to the subjectso dimples, under-votes,hanging chads, or the SupremeCourts ruling that ended the

recount process in Florida.The general election

campaign, though hard ought,gave little indication o thecontroversy to come. Accordingto most polls, GovernorBush o Texas held a narrow lead, but Vice PresidentGore appeared to be closing the gap. Two minor partycandidates presented a complicating actor: Consumeradvocate Ralph Naders Green Party was perceivedas drawing support rom Gore voters, while PatrickBuchanan, nominee o the Reorm Party, was expected tocut into Bushs popular vote.

More than 105 million Americans cast votes orpresident on November 7; by early evening it was clearthat the election would be close. Gore held a slightpopular vote lead nationwide, and the electoral vote wasalso tight, standing at 246 electoral votes or Bush and255 or Gore, with 37 undecided in three states. NewMexico and Oregon, with 12 votes, were eventuallydeclared or Gore, but Florida, with 25 decisive electoralvotes and where Bush held a tiny lead, remained incontention.

Reports o conusing ballots and other irregularitiesled to demands or statewide and county recounts inFlorida. The national Democratic and Republican partiesdispatched teams o lawyers and political operatives tomake their case in the courts and media. Acrimonious andwidely publicized disputes over the recounts dominatedthe news or weeks, and both parties iled suit in Floridastate and ederal courts. Meanwhile, the clock was ticking:Federal law required Florida to declare its electoral vote byDecember 12.

Ater a series o starts and stops and conlicting lowercourt decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled ive toour that Floridas recount procedures violated the 14thAmendments equal protection clause and that, since therewas no time to devise and implement a dierent plan,the vote would stand. The courts decision was assailedby Gore supporters as politically biased in avor o theRepublican Party, but the recounts ended and GeorgeBush was declared the winner in Florida with a margin o537 votes. Nationwide, Bush won 271 electoral votes toAl Gores 266, but Gore had received about 540,000 morepopular votes.

Although bitterly disappointed, Vice President Goreaccepted the results and urged his supporters to respectthe Supreme Courts decision in the best interests o thenation. A number o representatives contested the resultswhen Congress met to count the electoral vote on January

6, 2001, but they lacked Senate co-sponsors and weredisallowed by Gore, who as vice president presided overthe session. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, the irstU.S. president in more than a century who ailed to win aplurality o the popular vote.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reect the views orpolicies o the U.S. government or the policies or fndings o the CongressionalResearch Service.

The Los Angeles Daily News declares George W. Bush the 2000 winner the day ater the election, although

vote counting went on or several more weeks.

APImages/N

ickUt


24/35

eJournaluSa 22

Electoral College Reform? Not So Easy

David Lublin

Reorming the Electoral College system or electing the U.S.president would require enormous eort and a consensus thatdoes not now exist.

David Lublin is proessor o government in the School oPublic Aairs at American University, Washington, D.C.

I

ts not hard to point out reasons why one mightwant to abolish the Electoral College or electing thepresident o the United States especially because

the system occasionally elects a candidate who has receivedewer popular votes nationally than another candidate.Figuring out how to replace it is not so simple.

One reason that the Electoral College is likely to stickaround is that amending the U.S. Constitution is diicult.It requires that the U.S. Congress irst pass the proposal bya two-thirds majority in both the House o Representativesand the Senate, and then three-quarters o the states mustratiy it. The Constitution has been amended only 27times since its adoption in 1787. And thats including

the irst 10 amendments to the Constitution, knowncollectively as the Bill o Rights, passed shortly aterratiication o the original Constitution.

Overwhelming support, i not consensus, is generallyrequired to get over the hurdles to ratiication. Thatconsensus does not currently exist or abolishing theElectoral College. Many Democrats think the loss o theircandidate in the 2000 presidential election shows theurgency o reorm, but some Republicans consequentlyview eorts to change the system as an eort to discredit

the victory o their candidate. Despite some support acrossparty lines, there is no consensus in avor o reorm.Moreover, various states have an array o reasons

to oppose ratiication. Small states receive a somewhatdisproportionate share o electoral votes since thenumber o electoral votes allotted to each state equals thenumber o senators always two plus the numbero representatives elected by the state at least one,regardless o the population. Closely contested states,such as Florida and Ohio in the 2000, 2004, and 2008

APImages/SteveHelber

The Supreme Court halted recounting o votes in Florida, essentially deciding the 2000 Bush-Gore election in

avor o Bush.


25/35

eJournaluSa 23

elections, receive more attention rom presidentialcandidates because electoral votes are allocated by thewinner-take-all method in all but two states Maine andNebraska. Electoral College opponents identiy this aspecto the current system as a law, but marginal states maynot be so quick to give up the extra attention lavished onthem by presidential candidates. Many people like the actthat the Electoral College relects the ederal nature o theUnited States and resist eorts to abolish it as an attack onederalism and the powers o the states.

natIonal PoPularvote ComPaCt

Some advocates o Electoral College reorm aresuggesting that the country work around the amendmentprocess through an interstate compact that would assure

that the winner o the national popular vote becomespresident. Proponents o this National Popular Votecompact suggest that states containing a majority oElectoral College votes should agree to cast their votes orthe presidential candidate who wins the national popularvote in the election, whether the candidate won or lostin those states. Adopting the reorm through a compactbetween the states would be much easier than throughconstitutional amendment. It would take 38 states toratiy a constitutional amendment, but as ew as the 11

most populous states could bring the interstate compactinto eect.

It sounds like a clever solution, but it may sowthe seeds o new problems. In the United States, thepresidential election is not really a single national electionbut 51 separate contests in the 50 states and the Districto Columbia (the national capital, Washington). Becauseeach state decides which presidential and vice presidentialcandidates get on its ballot, dierent sets o candidatesappear on the ballots o various states. Even under thecompact, Americans would still not have a true nationalelection in which every voter has the same candidatechoices.

Presidential candidates could even have dierentrunning mates in dierent states. The proposed compactrequires that any votes cast in any state or the presidential

or vice presidential candidate count toward the total orthe slate regardless o whether the same vice presidentialcandidate appeared on the ballot. For example, therunning mate o third-party candidate Ralph Nader didnot appear on the Caliornia ballot in 2004. Nonetheless,all votes cast or Ralph Nader in Caliornia would havecounted toward not just Naders national total but also orhis running mate, even though the running mate did notappear on the ballot an unsatisactory solution in thatcase.

APImages/Alan

Diaz

A direct popular vote or president could result in many more hotly contested election counts, such as the one in Florida in 2000. These computer analysts

are recounting ballots on November 8, 2000, in For t Lauderdale, Florida.


26/35

eJournaluSa 24

some oPen QuestIons

The close presidential contest between Republican

George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore in Florida in2000 and its impact on the outcome stimulated calls orreorm o the Electoral College. Ironically, a nationalpopular vote would likely compound the problems o aclose contest.

There is no mechanism in place and the proposedNational Popular Vote compact does not create one or deciding a nationally close contest. All existing ballotrecount laws govern the prospect o a close electionwithin a state but do not orce a recount i the election isnationally close. Moreover, while the news media and bothmajor political parties could give a great deal o scrutiny

to the recount in the single state at issue in 2000, it wouldbe much harder or them to do the same across the entirecountry. While the chance o a tight election is smallerin a national contest, the standards or what constitutes aclose election would also be much lower.

The enorceability o an interstate compact governinghow states cast their Electoral College votes also remainsan open question. The U.S. Constitution clearly gives

state legislatures the right to determine how states casttheir electoral votes. While the compact would prohibitwithdrawal rom the compact within six months o anelection, it is ar rom clear that this provision is legallyenorceable. The compact contains no backup provisions istates do withdraw and the courts reuse to stop them.

These concerns might seem small and overlytechnical, but the 2000 election demonstrated theimportance o legal details and the necessity o beingready when an improbably close election occurs. Nationalpopular election o the president may eventually be viable,but it will require careul advance planning at the ederal

level to make it work and more consensus than currentlyexists to make that happen.



27/35

eJournaluSa 25

The U.S. Electoral College has eatures common to otherelection systems around the world but combined in a uniqueway.

Andrew Ellis is director o operations or theInternational Institute or Democracy and Electoral Assistance(International IDEA) in Stockholm.

There are many criteria that can be used tojudge electoral rameworks. Some examplesare how representative they are, the stability

and eectiveness o government, the accountability o

government, the accountability o individual electedmembers, the encouragement o strong political parties,and the promotion o legislative opposition and oversight.But no electoral system can maximize all o these.

In designing institutional rameworks, the question tobe asked by any society is which criteria are important and why. Depending on the answers, institutional designcan seek to respond. However, the impact o any electoralsystem and ramework depends on many eatures and onhow the details interact with each other.

Dierent electoral systems can produce dierentwinners rom the same votes cast. The U.S. presidentialelectoral system has a set o eatures none o which areunique or even necessarily remarkable in themselves, butwhich are unique in their combination and eect.

majorCategorIes

Almost all electoral systems worldwide can bedivided into three major categories: plurality/majoritysystems, proportional representation systems, and mixedsystems. In the 199 countries and territories with an

identiiable electoral system at the end o 2004, 91 usedplurality/majority systems or legislative elections, 72 usedproportional representation systems, and 30 used mixedsystems. The systems in six other countries all outsidethese categories.

The irst-past-the-post, or winner-take-all, system isthe most common type o plurality/majority system: Itwas used in 47 o the 91 cases. In established democracies,proportional representation systems are more common,but the use o irst-past-the-post by India and the United

Electoral Systems in International PerspectiveAndrew Ellis

APImages/JacquesBrinon

HowtHe world vIews It

Paris Mayor Bertrand Delano was elected by an electoral college composed o city council members.


28/35

eJournaluSa 26

States means that more people live in countries andterritories that use such a system.

In choosing a president, there is, by deinition, one

winner. The electoral system used is bound to be o aplurality/majority type. At the end o 2004, there were102 countries and territories in which the people voted tochoose a president. This total includes countries with oneo two types o systems: a presidential system, in whichthe president serves both as head o state and head oexecutive government, serves or a ixed term, and is notdependent on the conidence o the legislature to stay inoice; and a parliamentary system, in which the presidentis head o state with ew or no substantive powers, andexecutive government is headed by a prime minister whodepends on the conidence o the legislature.

O these 102 countries, 78 used some orm o two-round system. And o those 78 countries, 22 used a irst-past-the-post system; one used the alternative vote, inwhich voters number their preerences; and one used thesupplementary vote, in which voters show their irst andsecond choices. The irst-past-the-post system is a knownand accepted model, although not the most commonlyused.

The systems used in 101 o the 102 countries thatselect a president involved the overall totaling o the votesor each candidate/ticket across the entire country. TheUnited States is, however, unique in also using an electoralcollege. Votes cast by the people in each o the states andthe District o Columbia are counted separately to chooseelectors or each, and the president is then chosen by theseelectors. The practical dierence brought about by thissystem is that it creates the possibility that the candidatewho wins the most votes across the whole country willnot be elected president. This has happened, in practice,on three occasions out o 55 U.S. presidential elections(1876, 1888, and 2000).

eleCtoral Colleges

Electoral college systems are also sometimes usedor elections at the local level. In Paris, each o the 20arrondissements(city districts) elects members o the citycouncil using a two-round electoral system that tends to

give the biggest proportion o seats to the leading politicalparty or that partys list o candidates, but that systemoten also enables representation o a second party or

list. The list is likely to eature the name o the mayoralcandidate prominently: The list o the current mayorcampaigned in the 2008 elections under the oicialdescription Paris, a time o advance with BertrandDelano.

Ater the results are declared, the newly elected Pariscity council members convene and vote to elect the mayor.An absolute majority is required or the mayor to beelected in the irst or the second round o voting. I thevoting goes to a third round, the mayor is elected by irst-past-the-post and may thereore have only a plurality.

The city council members thus orm an electoral

college. The important eature o this electoral college,however, is that the city council members also orm thecity legislature through the mayors period o oice. Theelection o the mayor by the legislators serves to maximizethe possibility that the mayor will have the support o aworking majority o the city legislature during the term ooice. In contrast, the members o the Electoral Collegeor the U.S. presidency have no other unction, and thereis no link built into the electoral system between thepresidency and the membership o the Congress.

In discussing electoral colleges, some writers includecountries such as Estonia, India, Suriname, and Trinidadand Tobago, where the president usually a head o statein a parliamentary system is elected by the memberso both houses o a two-chamber legislature, or by acombination o representatives elected at the national andlocal levels. In these countries, the voters or the legislaturechoose their legislators, and the candidates or presidentdo not appear on the ballot in either general or municipalelections. These systems are perhaps best described asindirect electoral systems rather than as electoral colleges.



29/35

eJournaluSa 27

The U.S. system or electing the president remains mysteriousto the French, but some elements o the two countries politicalsystems actually seem to be converging.

Andr Kaspi is proessor o North American historyat University Paris I Panthon-Sorbonne. This article wastranslated into English rom the original French.

C

an the French understand how the U.S. ElectoralCollege system works? Nothing is less certain!

Both in France, since 1962, and in the

United States, the people elect the president o therepublic, and both democracies do it by universal surage.The French, however, preer a direct election, in act, atwo-round election process in which any citizen couldbecome a candidate provided he or she collects 1,000signatures endorsing his or her candidacy. The irst roundallows a candidate to position himsel in the race; only thetwo candidates with the most votes can take part in thesecond round, which takes place two weeks later.

This means that, when all is said and done, the

winner would enjoy an absolute majority o the electoratesvotes. The French believe that their system is quite simple;it is open enough not to discount anyone, but constrainedenough to allow only serious candidates, who are wellestablished in political lie, to run or oice.

The Americans do things dierently. Each o the50 states and the District o Columbia holds its ownelection even i, at the end o the day, they all end upapplying essentially identical rules and procedures. Everystate chooses by popular vote a list o electors, each owhom represents one candidate. The number o names

on the list corresponds to the states total number o U.S.senators (always two) and U.S. representatives, whosenumber depends on the size o the states population. Thelist pledged to a candidate who wins a simple or absolutemajority o votes takes all o the states Electoral Collegeseats (winner takes all) in all but two o the U.S. states.

The presidential election, a quadrennial event, takesplace on the Tuesday ollowing the irst Monday inNovember. In December, the Electoral College, made upo the elected state electors, selects by absolute majority

The Electoral College: A French View

Andr Kaspi

French Socialist Party candidates (rom let) Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Laurent Fabius, and Segolne Royal

participate in a primary election debate.

APImages/EricFeferberg


30/35

eJournaluSa 28

the president and vice president o the United States.This two-step election process takes into consideration

both American demographics and political equality amongthe states o the Union, a positively surprising act to theFrench.

Federal, not CentralIzed

We orget that the United States is not a centralizedrepublic like France. States that make up the Union havetheir own history and own constitutional and social lie.They also insist on maintaining their separate inluence.Some are small or sparsely populated; others have verylarge populations.

The states are equal in some sense, but clearly or demographic and economic reasons some aremore equal than others. This is what accounts or thecomplexity o the American system. This also explainsthe anomaly that a candidate could win more popularvotes, but ewer electoral votes, than his rival. In 2000,George W. Bush was elected president, although Al Gorewon some 500,000 more popular votes than Bush did.In France, people were very surprised by this, i not

indignant.Most Americans, however, do not seem to want tochange their election system to look more like Frances,though rom time to time reorm ideas surace. Somepolitical scientists call or a system more like Frances,though not many o their compatriots are convinced, sinceeach state wants to maintain its political inluence. Within

each state, ethnic, racial, and religious minorities areeager to have a say in election results and would lose theability to do so i their voices were lost in a single national

electorate system.Moreover, the United States and France deine

citizenship dierently. American democracy ismulticultural; voting by cultural bloc occupies animportant position in American political lie and canonly enjoy inluence in the context o individual states.Thereore, even i the system was invented in the 18thcentury and some still dream o amending the ederalConstitution, the survival o the Electoral College is not injeopardy. This particular institution has its own history torely on and is not without a uture.

narrowIng some gaPs

Nevertheless, American primary elections are lookingmore and more like the irst election round in France, asDemocrats and Republicans vote to eliminate candidateswho will not be able to go the distance. By the AmericanLabor Day in September, only two major party candidatesremain, and any other candidates are let with a negligiblerole, except i they are in a position to aect the outcomein narrowly divided states.

The French are hesitantly starting to hold primaries.And although these are not yet systematically organized,they help, one way or another, to sort out the candidateso each political party. In 2006, or example, the SocialistParty ielded three candidates, and party activists choseone o them, Segolne Royal, to represent them. Similarly,and although the Union or a Popular Movement (UPM)chose another route, party members had to select one otwo main candidates. It is not that aretched to see thatsame process expanded, adopted, and replayed in uturepresidential elections.

The method o choosing a president, whether inFrance or the United States, relects that countrys deepest

cultural oundations. Nothing would be more artiicial,and thereore regrettable, than to impose on one countrywhat works well in another.


U.S. presidential electors, such as these in Ohio in 2004, are unlikely to

disappear soon.

APImages/WillShilling


31/35

eJournaluSa 29

The U.S. and British election systems are quite dierent, butthey sometimes produce oddly similar outcomes.

Philip John Davies is proessor o American studies atDe Montort University, Leicester, and director o the Eccles

Centre or American Studies at the British Library, London,United Kingdom.

Transatlantic classrooms provide specialopportunities to learn. British students aresometimes a little startled to hear that legislators

in the United States oten run in election campaignswhere the personal agendas o the candidates overshadowcentralized party political messages.

Their eyebrows raise when presented with evidencethat presidents, even o the same political party, mayhave a good deal o negotiating to do and compromisesto make with the legislature in order to have any successin turning the platorm presented to the electorate intoworking policies.

And they sometimes purse their lips at the arcanestructure o the Electoral College and its recently

evidenced ability to leave the candidate with the mostpopular votes nationwide as the runner-up.

The voters cant guarantee getting the policies theysupported even i their party wins! They cant be sure theyget the leader that most o them vote or! Is that reallydemocratic?

In their turn, students in the United States ind theirsuspicions raised by a British election system so dominatedby the party political maniestos that individual candidatecharacteristics generally make only marginal dierences tothe results. The level o control over policy demonstratedby an executive that operates inside the legislatureconcerns them.

And when it comes to appointing the prime minister,they can be very surprised by the tenuous connectionbetween the electorate and the selection process.

Almost no voters are involved in selecting the PM!The parties have immense control over the politicalagenda! Is that really democratic?

varyIng vIewsoF demoCraCy

In the political lexicon, democracy is deinitely a

hooray word. Generally nations want to be identiiedas democratic, even i this might be seen more as publicrelations than actuality. In the hal century that Germanywas divided, it was the Communist eastern sector thatmanaged to name itsel Democratic Republic.

But even nations that accept each others democraticcredentials may design their systems very dierently.Viewed through a transcultural lens, democraticinstitutions and their dierent cultural and historicaloundations can look conusing, and parallels across

Across the Atlantic,

Some Surprising SimilaritiesPhilip John Davies

GettyImages

Harold Wilsons Labour Par ty won the 1964 election with razor-thin

victories in a number o seats.


32/35

eJournaluSa 30

cultural boundaries can be missed.The United Kingdom system remains geared to the

centrality o party political competition. Modiications toparty leadership selection in recent years have included theintroduction o structures called electoral colleges. Thesecolleges are intended to ensure a balance o representationbetween groups within the parties, and they undoubtedlyowe something to lessons learned rom across the Atlantic,but they are in no way built on the ederalist principles atthe center o the U.S. Electoral College.

These dierences notwithstanding, the party-basedprocesses or choosing a British prime minister are everybit as arcane as those or choosing a president o theUnited States.

Some similarities do emerge in election results.The U.S. Electoral College oers potential victory toa candidate who does not have a majority o popularvotes nationwide. This should be no mystery toBritish observers, since in none o the 17 UK generalelections since the end o the Second World War has thewinning party had a majority o the popular vote. The

Conservatives came closest in 1955, with 49.7 percento the popular vote. But in seven postwar elections, thewinning party gained less than 45 percent, and in three o

those less than 40 percent o the popular vote, alling to35.2 percent in the 2005 election.

tHe sIgnIFICanCeoF small numbers

The U.S. Electoral College winner may neverthelesshave received ewer votes than the runner-up. It does nothappen very oten, but the election o 2000 brought thiseature into high relie.

A similar thing can happen in UK general elections.In 1951 the Labour Party received almost 1 percent moreo the aggregate popular vote than the Conservatives

and their allies, but ended up with 4 percent ewer seats.In February 1974 it was the Conservatives who had asmall lead in the popular vote, while the Labour Partytook more seats. While other parties held enough seatsnotionally to hold a balance o power, Labour ormed aminority administration.

The 2000 election in the United States brought homethe potential signiicance o small numbers o votes in keystates, when the outcome teetered or weeks on the uneasyulcrum o the result in Florida.

Again, similarities can be ound in the UnitedKingdom. In 1964 Labour won 317 out o the 630available seats, gaining an absolute majority o our seatsover all other parties. One constituency was won byLabour by only seven votes, and three other close races inthe same election were decided by 10, 11, and 14 votes,respectively.

There is no doubt that observers in many countrieswill continue to ind their perspectives on democracybroadened when they look across borders. Dierences arereal, can surprise, and provide a backdrop against whichnew perceptions can emerge. And it should never cease tobe entertaining to observe the oddities o other political

cultures and, through them, to notice the oddities athome.


George W. Bush takes the oath o ofce January 20, 2001, ater receiving

ewer popular votes nationally than the runner-up.

APImages/DougMills


33/35

eJournaluSa 31

Books and Articles

Baker, Ross K., and Jamie Raskin. Has the ElectoralCollege Outlived Its Useulness? eJournal USA: The LongCampaign: U.S. Elections 2008, (October 2007):pp. 40-45.http://usino.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/useulness.htm

Bennett, Robert W. Taming the Electoral College.Stanord, CA: Stanord Law and Politics, 2006.

Best, Judith. The Choice o the People? Debating theElectoral College. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleield,1996.

Bonsor, Kevin. How the Electoral College Works.http://www.howstuworks.com/electoral-college.htm

Colomer, Josep, ed. Handbook o Electoral System Choice.New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Debating the Merits of the Electoral College. NationalPublic Radio (27 October 2004).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4127863

Edwards, George C. Why the Electoral College Is Bad orAmerica. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.

Fortier, John C., ed.Ater the People Vote: A Guide to theElectoral College. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2004.

Frey, William H. The Electoral College Moves tothe Sun Belt. The Brookings Institution Research Brie.

Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, May 2005.http://www.brookings.edu/metro/20050505_Frey.pd

Glenn, Gary. Contemporary Perspectives: The ElectoralCollege and the Development o American Democracy.

Perspectives on Political Science, vol. 32, no. 1 (Winter2003); p.4.

Greenfield, Jeff. The Peoples Choice. New York: Plume,1996.

Gregg, Gary L. Securing Democracy: Why We Have anElectoral College. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001.

Issacharoff, Samuel. Law, Rules, and PresidentialSelection. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 120, no. 1(Spring 2005): p. 113.

Kura, Alexandrea, ed.Electoral College and PresidentialElections. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers,

2001.

Longley, Lawrence D. The Electoral College Primer, 2000.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.

Neale, Thomas H. The Electoral College: How It Worksin Contemporary Presidential Elections. Washington, DC:Congressional Research Service, 2004.http://pc.state.gov/documents/organization/36762.pd

Neale, Thomas H. The Electoral College: Reorm Proposalsin the 109th Congress. Washington, DC: CongressionalResearch Service, 2007.http://pc.state.gov/documents/organization/82468.pd

Rakove, Jack N. Presidential Selection: ElectoralFallacies. Political Science Quarterly, vol.. 119, no. 1(Spring 2004): p. 21.

Reynolds, Andrew, Ben Re

electoral college.pdf

Documents