| Revision as of 05:00, 10 November 2020 view sourceSMP0328. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,242 editsm →Procedure: Simplified description of Twenty-third Amendment; ceTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:54, 27 December 2024 view source SimplyDomRBLX (talk | contribs)59 editsNo edit summaryTag: Visual edit | ||
| (914 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Electors of the U.S. president and vice president}} | |||
| {{about||electoral colleges in general|Electoral college|other uses and regions|Electoral college (disambiguation)}} | |||
| {{pp|small=yes}} | |||
| {{short description|Institution that officially elects both the President and Vice President of the United States}} | |||
| {{for-multi|electoral colleges in general|Electoral college|other uses and regions|Electoral college (disambiguation)}} | |||
| {{use mdy dates|date=March 2013}} | |||
| {{ |
{{use mdy dates|date=March 2013|cs1-dates=l}} | ||
| {{use American English|date=November 2020}} | |||
| ] and the ] for ] held in ] and to be held in 2028 based on the ]. Every jurisdiction is entitled to at least 3.]] | |||
| ], held using ] data, ] received 226 ({{colorbull|#698DC5|round|size=140}}) and ] received 312 ({{colorbull|#F07763|round|size=140}}) of the total 538 electoral votes. | |||
| ----In ] (upper-right) and ] (center), the small circled numbers indicate congressional districts. These are the only 2 states to use a ] for some of their allocated electors, instead of a complete ] ].]] | |||
| {{politics of the United States}} | |||
| In the ], the '''Electoral College''' is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the ] for the sole purpose of voting for the ] and ]. This process is described in ].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article II |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii |access-date=2024-03-07 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> The number of electoral votes exercised by each ] is equal to that state's ] which is the number of ] (two) plus the number of ] for that state. Each state ] using legal procedures determined by its ]. ], including senators and representatives, cannot be electors. Additionally, the ] granted the federal ] three electors (bringing the total number from 535 to 538). A ] of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate achieves a majority, a ] is held by the ], to elect the president, and by the ], to elect the vice president. | |||
| The states and the District of Columbia hold a statewide or district-wide popular vote on ] in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president, with some state laws prohibiting ]s. All states except ] and ] use a ], or general ticket method, to choose their electors, meaning all their electors go to one winning ticket. Maine and Nebraska choose ] and two electors for the ] with the highest statewide vote. The ] in December, and the ] take place in January. | |||
| ] and the ] for ] held in ], ] and ], based on congressional representation, which depends on population data from the ]. Every jurisdiction is entitled to at least 3.]] | |||
| ], the total number of electoral votes was 538, of which ] received 304 ({{colorbull|#FA0011|round|size=130}}), ] 227 ({{colorbull|#2929FF|round|size=130}}), ] 3 ({{colorbull|#B836D9|round|size=130}}), ] 1 ({{colorbull|#4BCF40|round|size=130}}), ] 1 ({{colorbull|#FFC7AB|round|size=130}}), ] 1 ({{colorbull|#EDF83C|round|size=130}}) and ] 1 ({{colorbull|#3BF2FF|round|size=130}}).]] | |||
| The merit of the electoral college system has been a matter of ongoing debate in the United States since its inception at the ] in 1787, becoming more controversial by the latter years of the 19th century, up to the present day.<ref>{{cite web |last=Karimi |first=Faith |date=10 October 2020 |title=Why the Electoral College has long been controversial |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/10/us/electoral-college-slavery-links-trnd/index.html |access-date=31 December 2021 |website=CNN}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Keim |first=Andy |title=Mitch McConnell Defends the Electoral College |url=https://www.myheritage.org/news/the-national-popular-vote-will-not-get-senator-mcconnell%E2%80%99s-vote/ |access-date=31 December 2021 |website=The Heritage Foundation}}</ref> More resolutions have been submitted to amend the Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution.<ref name=":03">{{Cite news |last=Bolotnikova |first=Marina N. |date=July 6, 2020 |title=Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? |url=https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/07/why-do-we-still-have-the-electoral-college |work=]}}</ref> An amendment that would have abolished the system was approved by the House in 1969, but failed to move past the Senate.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last1=Ziblatt |first1=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Ziblatt |last2=Levitsky |first2=Steven |author-link2=Steven Levitsky |date=2023-09-05 |title=How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |access-date=2023-09-20 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref> | |||
| {{Politics of the United States}} | |||
| Supporters argue that it requires presidential candidates to have broad appeal across the country to win, while critics argue that it is not representative of the popular will of the nation.{{efn|The ] had rejected presidential selection by direct popular vote.<ref>{{harvnb|Beeman|2010|pp=}}</ref> That being the case, election mechanics based on an electoral college were devised to render selection of the president independent of both state legislatures and the national legislature.<ref>{{harvnb|Beeman|2010|p=}}</ref>}} Winner-take-all systems, especially with representation not proportional to population, do not align with the principle of "]".{{efn|Writing in the policy journal ], Allen Guelzo argues, "it is worthwhile to deal directly with three popular arguments against the Electoral College. The first, that the Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote". In assigning electoral college votes by winner-take-all, the states themselves violate the one-person-one-vote principle. Hillary Clinton won 61.5% of the California vote, and she received all 55 of California's electoral votes as a result. The disparity in Illinois was "even more dramatic". Clinton won that state's popular vote 3.1 million to 2.1 million, and that 59.6% share granted her Illinois's 20 electoral votes.<ref name=NationalAffairs>{{cite web| url=https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college| title=In Defense of the Electoral College| publisher=National Affairs| date=April 2, 2018| last=Guelzo| first=Allen| access-date=November 5, 2020}}</ref>}}<ref name="auto8">{{cite magazine |last=Lounsbury |first=Jud |date=November 17, 2016 |title=One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live |url=https://progressive.org/dispatches/one-person-one-vote-depends-live./ |magazine=] |location=Madison, Wisconsin |publisher=Progressive, Inc. |access-date=August 14, 2020}}</ref> Critics object to the inequity that, due to the distribution of electors, individual citizens in states with ] have more voting power than those in larger states. Because the number of electors each state appoints is equal to the size of its congressional delegation, each state is entitled to at least three electors regardless of its population, and the ] of the statutorily fixed number of the rest is only roughly proportional. This allocation has contributed to runners-up of the ] being elected president in ], ], ], ], and ]<ref>{{cite web |last=Neale |first=Thomas H. |date=October 6, 2017 |title=Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43824.pdf |access-date=October 24, 2020 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |location=Washington, D.C.}}</ref><ref name="auto7">{{cite news |last1=Mahler |first1=Jonathan |last2=Eder |first2=Steve |date=November 10, 2016 |title=The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure? |newspaper=] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/the-electoral-college-is-hated-by-many-so-why-does-it-endure.html |access-date=January 5, 2019}}</ref> In addition, faithless electors may not vote in accord with their pledge.<ref name="auto4">{{Cite web|last=West|first=Darrell M.|date=2020|title=It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Big-Ideas_West_Electoral-College.pdf}}</ref>{{efn|Although faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a state popular vote, or the national total, that scenario was further weakened by the 2020 court case ].<ref name="auto6">{{Cite web|title=Should We Abolish the Electoral College?|url=https://stanfordmag.org/contents/should-we-abolish-the-electoral-college|access-date=2020-09-03|work=Stanford Magazine|date=September 2016|language=en}}</ref>}} A further objection is that ] receive the most attention from candidates.<ref name="auto5">{{cite web|url=http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-case-against-the-electoral-college/|title=The Case Against the Electoral College|website=]|last=Tropp|first=Rachel|date=February 21, 2017|access-date=January 5, 2019|archive-date=August 5, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805024251/https://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-case-against-the-electoral-college/|url-status=dead}}</ref> By the end of the 20th century, electoral colleges had been abandoned by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an ].<ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last1=Collin |first1=Richard Oliver |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-vSlx-_Z408C&pg=PA244 |title=An Introduction to World Politics: Conflict and Consensus on a Small Planet |last2=Martin |first2=Pamela L. |date=2012-01-01 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9781442218031 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":06">{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition=First |location=New York}}</ref><sup>:215</sup> | |||
| The '''United States Electoral College''' is the group of presidential electors required by the ] to form every four years for the sole purpose of electing the ] and ]. Each ] ] according to its ], equal in number to its ] but ] cannot be electors. Of the current 538 electors, an ] of 270 or more ''electoral votes'' is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate achieves an absolute majority there, a ] is held by the ] to elect the president and vice president. | |||
| ==Procedure== | |||
| Currently, the states and the ] use a statewide popular vote on ] in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president, with some state laws against ]. All jurisdictions use a ] to choose their electors, except for ] and ]. They choose ] and two electors for the ] with the highest statewide vote. The ] in December and the ] takes place in January. | |||
| ] for president. In the ], Harrison became one of the five presidents elected without winning the popular vote.]] | |||
| ] of the ] directs each ] to appoint a number of electors equal to that state's congressional delegation (the number of members of the ] plus two ]). The same clause empowers each ] to determine the manner by which that state's electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from being named electors. Following the national presidential ] on Tuesday after the first Monday in November,<ref name="ElecDay">Statutes at Large, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, .</ref> each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws. After a popular election, the states identify and record their appointed electors in a '']'', and those appointed electors then meet in their respective jurisdictions and produce a ''Certificate of Vote'' for their candidate; both certificates are then sent to Congress to be opened and counted.<ref name="crs-IF11641">{{cite web |last1=Neale |first1=Thomas H. |title=The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |access-date=November 19, 2020 |date=January 17, 2021 |archive-date=November 9, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109050550/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
| In 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate that the winner of the ] of the statewide popular vote receives all of that state's electoral votes.<ref name="auto2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html|title=What is the Electoral College?|website=National Archives|date=December 23, 2019|access-date=September 27, 2020}}</ref> In ] and ], two electoral votes are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their ].<ref>{{Cite web|date=March 6, 2020|title=Distribution of Electoral Votes |url=https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation|access-date=September 27, 2020|website=National Archives|language=en}}</ref> The federal district, ], allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state's winning ticket; to prevent electors from being ], most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors' pledge.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws|title=Faithless Elector State Laws|website=Fair Vote|date=July 7, 2020|access-date=July 7, 2020|quote=There are 33 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (16 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast.}}</ref> | |||
| The appropriateness of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters argue that it is a fundamental component of ]. They maintain the system elected the winner of the nationwide ] in over 90% of presidential elections; promotes political stability; preserves the Constitutional role of the states in presidential elections; and fosters a broad-based, enduring, and generally moderate political party system.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43824.pdf| title=Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress| publisher=Congressional Research Service| location=Washington, D.C.| date=October 6, 2017| last=Neale| first=Thomas H.| accessdate=October 24, 2020}}</ref> Furthermore, it is argued, candidates must appeal to a broad and diverse set of states rather than focusing only on the few U.S. cities with the highest population densities.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college| title=In Defense of the Electoral College| publisher=National Affairs| date=April 2, 2018| last=Guelzo| first=Allen| accessdate=November 5, 2020}}</ref> Critics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than a national ] and is subject to manipulation because of ]s, although that scenario was weakened by the 2020 Supreme Court decision in '']'';<ref name="auto4">{{Cite web|last=West|first=Darrell M.|date=2020|title=It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Big-Ideas_West_Electoral-College.pdf|publisher=Brookings Institute}}</ref><ref name="auto6">{{Cite web|title=Should We Abolish the Electoral College?|url=https://stanfordmag.org/contents/should-we-abolish-the-electoral-college|access-date=2020-09-03|publisher=Stanford Magazine}}</ref> that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "]";<ref name="auto8">{{cite magazine|last=Lounsbury|first=Jud|title=One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live|date=November 17, 2016|url=https://progressive.org/dispatches/one-person-one-vote-depends-live./|magazine=]|publisher=Progressive, Inc.|location=Madison, Wisconsin|accessdate=August 14, 2020}}</ref> and that there can be elections where one candidate wins the national popular vote but another wins the electoral vote and therefore the presidency, as in ] and ],<ref name="auto7">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/the-electoral-college-is-hated-by-many-so-why-does-it-endure.html|title=The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?|newspaper=]|date=November 10, 2016|last=Mahler|first=Jonathan|last2=Eder|first2=Steve|accessdate=January 5, 2019}}</ref> which has resulted in the ].<ref name="Bennett">{{cite journal |journal=]|first=Robert W.|last=Bennett|volume=4|number=3|ssrn=261057|title=Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment|url=http://www.greenbag.org/v4n3/v4n3_articles_bennett.pdf|date=Spring 2001|accessdate=January 17, 2019}}</ref> Individual citizens in less populous states <!-- with 5% of the Electoral College (~27 electors) -->have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states.<ref name="auto9">{{cite web|url=http://time.com/4571626/electoral-college-wrong-arguments/|title=These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are All Wrong|website=]|date=November 15, 2016|last=Speel|first=Robert|accessdate=January 5, 2019 |quote=“Rural states do get a slight boost from the two electoral votes awarded to states due to their two Senate seats}}</ref> Furthermore, candidates can win by focusing their resources on just a few ]s.<ref name="auto5">{{cite web|url=http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-case-against-the-electoral-college/|title=The Case Against the Electoral College|website=]|last=Tropp|first=Rachel|date=February 21, 2017|accessdate=January 5, 2019}}</ref> | |||
| The electors of each state meet in their respective ] on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December, between December 14 and 20, to cast their votes.<ref name="auto2"/><ref name="electoral2022">{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4573/text|title=S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022|date=2022-10-18|access-date=2024-06-28}}</ref> The results are sent to and counted by the ], where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a ], presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.<ref name="auto2"/><ref name=CRS>{{cite report|url= https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/13 |title=Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress|date=December 8, 2020|publisher=Congressional Research Service|access-date=April 17, 2024}}</ref> | |||
| Most polls since 1967 have shown that a majority of Americans favor the president and vice president being elected by the nationwide popular vote, instead of by the Electoral College,<ref>{{cite web|last=Saad|first=Lydia|date=January 18, 2013|title=Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx|accessdate=January 6, 2019|publisher=Gallup, Inc.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Dutton|first=Sarah|last2=De Pinto|first2=Jennifer|last3=Backus|first3=Fred|last4=Khanna|first4=Kabir|last5=Salvanto|first5=Anthony|date=December 15, 2016|title=Poll: More Americans Believe Popular Vote Should Decide the President|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-more-americans-believe-popular-vote-should-decide-the-president/|accessdate=January 6, 2019|website=]}}</ref> though polls taken since 2016 have shown an increase in support for keeping the Electoral College. A ] taken just after the 2016 election showed that Americans' support for keeping the Electoral College system for electing presidents had increased sharply, from 35% in 2011 to 47% in 2016. Support among Democrats for amending the Constitution in favor of using the popular vote rose from 69% to 81% and support among Republicans fell from 54% to 19%.<ref>{{cite web|date=December 2, 2016|title=Americans' Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply.aspx|access-date=April 5, 2019|publisher=news.gallup.com}}</ref> According to a ] poll done in March 2018, 75% of Democrats supported moving to a popular-vote system compared to 32% of Republicans, with overall support for a popular vote at 55% for versus 41% against.<ref>{{cite web|date=April 26, 2018|title=The Electoral College, Congress and representation|url=https://www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/5-the-electoral-college-congress-and-representation/|access-date=April 15, 2019|publisher=Pew Research Center}}</ref> | |||
| Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a ] takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states. The Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-09-16|title=Vision 2020: What happens if the US election is contested?|url=https://apnews.com/fa1f88c9ff0681bd78b147137c09b3d9|access-date=2020-09-18|website=AP NEWS}}</ref> The elected president and vice president are ] on January 20. | |||
| {{TOC limit}} | |||
| Since 1964, there have been 538 electors. States select 535 of the electors, this number matches the aggregate total of their congressional delegations.<ref name="CRS2017THN">{{cite web|last=Neale|first=Thomas H.|date=May 15, 2017|title=The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32611.pdf|access-date=July 29, 2018|work=CRS Report for Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|location=Washington, D.C.|page=13}}</ref><ref name="Art2ERE">{{cite web|last=Elhauge|first=Einer R.|title=Essays on Article II: Presidential Electors|url=https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/79/presidential-electors|access-date=August 6, 2018|work=The Heritage Guide to The Constitution|publisher=The Heritage Foundation}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Ross|first=Tara|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t0IkDwAAQBAJ|title=The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule|publisher=Regenary Gateway|year=2017|isbn=978-1-62157-707-2|location=Washington, D.C.|page=26}}</ref> The additional three electors come from the ], ratified in 1961, providing that the district established pursuant to ] as the ] (namely, ]) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populous state.<ref>{{cite web|author=United States Government Printing Office|author-link=United States Government Printing Office|title=Presidential Electors for D.C. – Twenty-third Amendment|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-9-24.pdf}}</ref> In practice, that results in Washington D.C. being entitled to three electors.<ref name="Murriel">{{Cite news|last=Murriel|first=Maria|date=November 1, 2016|title=Millions of Americans can't vote for president because of where they live|work=PRI's The World|url=https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-01/millions-americans-cant-vote-president-because-where-they-live|access-date=September 5, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=King|first=Ledyard|date=May 7, 2019|title=Puerto Rico: At the center of a political storm, but can its residents vote for president?|newspaper=USA Today|url=https://www.usatoday.com/amp/1119543001|access-date=September 6, 2019|archive-date=July 31, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731003405/https://www.usatoday.com/amp/1119543001|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
| == Procedure== | |||
| ] of the Constitution empowers each ] to determine the manner by which the state's electors are chosen. Following the national presidential ] on the first Tuesday after November 1,<ref name="ElecDay">Statutes at Large, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, .</ref> each state, and the federal district, counts its popular votes according to its laws to select the electors. | |||
| == Background == | |||
| In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the winner of the ] of the statewide or districtwide vote receives all of that state or district's electors;<ref name="auto2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html|title=What is the Electoral College?|website=National Archives|date=December 23, 2019|access-date=September 27, 2020}}</ref> in ] and ], two electors are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electors are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each ].<ref>{{Cite web|date=March 6, 2020|title=Distribution of Electoral Votes |url=https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation|access-date=September 27, 2020|website=National Archives|language=en}}</ref> States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state's winning ticket; to avoid ], most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors’ pledge.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws|title=Faithless Elector State Laws|website=Fair Vote|date=July 7, 2020|accessdate=July 7, 2020|quote=There are 33 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (16 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast.}}</ref> | |||
| {{Primary sources|section|date=February 2024}} | |||
| The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 5}}</ref> The compromise was reached after other proposals, including a ] for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.<ref name=":3" /> ] and ] describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."<ref name=":3" /> | |||
| In 1787, the ] used the ] as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for Congress to elect the president.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_529.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29|publisher=Avalon Project|access-date=April 13, 2011}}</ref><ref>.</ref> Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, delegates came to oppose nomination by Congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. ] then made a motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_602.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 2|publisher=Avalon Project|access-date=April 13, 2011}}</ref><ref>></ref> | |||
| The electors of each state meet in their respective ] on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes.<ref name="auto2"/> The results are sent to and counted by the ], where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a ], presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.<ref name="auto2"/><ref name=CRS>{{cite report|url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32717.htm|title= | |||
| Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress|date=November 15, 2016|publisher=Congressional Research Service}}</ref> Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a ] takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states; the Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-09-16|title=Vision 2020: What happens if the US election is contested?|url=https://apnews.com/fa1f88c9ff0681bd78b147137c09b3d9|access-date=2020-09-18|website=AP NEWS}}</ref> The elected president and vice president are ] on January 20. | |||
| Later in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details. They included the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the ] and ]), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member ] explained the reasons for the change. Among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by Congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_904.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 4|publisher=Avalon Project|access-date=April 13, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zXMdcTVStnsC&pg=PA216|title=The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2008|first=William G.|last=Mayer|date=November 15, 2008|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-0-7425-4719-3 |via=Google Books}}</ref> | |||
| Since 1964, there have been 538 electors. The number of electors from each state is the same quantity as that state's congressional delegation (members of the ] plus two ]). In total, there are 100 senators and 435 state representatives.<ref name="CRS2017THN">{{cite web|last=Neale|first=Thomas H.|date=May 15, 2017|title=The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32611.pdf|accessdate=July 29, 2018|work=CRS Report for Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|location=Washington, D.C.|page=13}}</ref><ref name="Art2ERE">{{cite web|last=Elhauge|first=Einer R.|title=Essays on Article II: Presidential Electors|url=https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/79/presidential-electors|accessdate=August 6, 2018|work=The Heritage Guide to The Constitution|publisher=The Heritage Foundation}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Ross|first=Tara|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t0IkDwAAQBAJ|title=The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule|publisher=Regenary Gateway|year=2017|isbn=978-1-62157-707-2|location=Washington, D.C.|page=26}}</ref> The remaining three electors come from the ], ratified in 1961, providing that the district established pursuant to ] as the ] (namely, ]) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populous state.<ref>{{cite web|author=United States Government Printing Office|author-link=United States Government Printing Office|title=Presidential Electors for D.C. — Twenty-third Amendment|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-9-24.pdf}}</ref> In practice, that results in Washington D.C. being entitled to 3 electors. ] (both modern-day territories like ] and historical territories like the ]) have never been entitled to any electors in the Electoral College.<ref name="Murriel">{{Cite news|last=Murriel|first=Maria|date=November 1, 2016|title=Millions of Americans can't vote for president because of where they live|work=PRI's The World|url=https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-01/millions-americans-cant-vote-president-because-where-they-live|accessdate=September 5, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=King|first=Ledyard|date=May 7, 2019|title=Puerto Rico: At the center of a political storm, but can its residents vote for president?|newspaper=USA Today|url=https://www.usatoday.com/amp/1119543001|accessdate=September 6, 2019}}</ref> | |||
| Once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/james-wilson-popular-sovereignty-and-the-electoral-college|title=James Wilson, popular sovereignty, and the Electoral College|publisher=National Constitution Center|access-date=April 9, 2019|date=November 28, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://ashbrook.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/madisons_debates.pdf|title=The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison|publisher=Ashland University|access-date=July 30, 2020}}</ref> Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of ] in the South: | |||
| == Background == | |||
| {{blockquote|There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.<ref> Farrand's Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress</ref>}} | |||
| The ] in 1787 used the ] as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for Congress to elect the president.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_529.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29|publisher=Avalon Project|accessdate=April 13, 2011}}</ref> Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, however, delegates came to oppose nomination by Congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. ] then made a motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_602.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 2|publisher=Avalon Project|accessdate=April 13, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| The convention approved the committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 4, 1787.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_906.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 6|publisher=Avalon Project|access-date=April 13, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-september4.htm|title=September 4, 1787: The Electoral College (U.S. National Park Service)|website=www.nps.gov}}</ref> Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area, such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland, generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.<ref>{{cite book|last=Madison|first=James|title=Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787|year=1966|publisher=The Norton Library|asin=B003G6AKX2|page=294}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote, would decide most elections.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Patrick|first1=John J.|last2=Pious|first2=Richard M.|last3=Ritchie|first3=Donald A.|title=The Oxford Guide to the United States Government|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9nYh3RocaG8C|year=2001|publisher=Oxford University Press, USA|isbn=978-0-19-514273-0|page=}}</ref> | |||
| Later in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the ] and ]), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member ] explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by Congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_904.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 4|publisher=Avalon Project|accessdate=April 13, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| In '']'', ] explained his views on the selection of the president and the ]. In ], Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of ] and ] government. ] would have two houses: the state-based ] and the population-based ]. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp|title=The Federalist 39|publisher=Avalon Project|access-date=April 13, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| However, once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/james-wilson-popular-sovereignty-and-the-electoral-college|title=James Wilson, popular sovereignty, and the Electoral College|publisher=National Constitution Center|access-date=April 9, 2019|date=November 28, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://ashbrook.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/madisons_debates.pdf|title=The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison|publisher=Ashland University|access-date=July 30, 2020}}</ref> Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of ] in the South: | |||
| {{quote|There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.<ref> Farrand's Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress</ref>}} | |||
| ] in ], published on March 12, 1788, laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone, for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.<ref name="The Federalist Papers: No. 68">Hamilton. The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. viewed November 10, 2016.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Hamilton explained that the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of ]. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public, in a time before telecommunications. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.<ref name="The Federalist Papers: No. 68"/> | |||
| The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_906.asp|title=Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 6|publisher=Avalon Project|accessdate=April 13, 2011}}</ref> Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area, such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland, generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.<ref>{{cite book|last=Madison|first=James|title=Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787|url=https://www.amazon.com/Debates-Federal-Convention-Reported-Madison/dp/B003G6AKX2/|year=1966|publisher=The Norton Library|asin=B003G6AKX2|page=294}}</ref> At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote, would decide most elections.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Patrick|first1=John J.|last2=Pious|first2=Richard M.|last3=Ritchie|first3=Donald A.|title=The Oxford Guide to the United States Government|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9nYh3RocaG8C|year=2001|publisher=Oxford University Press, USA|isbn=978-0-19-514273-0|page=}}</ref> | |||
| Another consideration was that the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place where decision makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,<ref>The ] changed this to the top three candidates,</ref>{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}} ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" attaining high office.<ref name="The Federalist Papers: No. 68"/> | |||
| In '']'', ] explained his views on the selection of the president and the ]. In ], Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of ] and ] government. ] would have two houses: the state-based ] and the population-based ]. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp|title=The Federalist 39|publisher=Avalon Project|accessdate=April 13, 2011}}</ref> | |||
| In the ], James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an ]. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., ], as opposed to ]) combined with the principles of ] (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No.{{nbsp}}10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as ].<ref>''The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay'' The New American Library, 1961.</ref> | |||
| ] in ] laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone, for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.<ref name="The Federalist Papers: No. 68">Hamilton. The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. viewed November 10, 2016.</ref> Hamilton explained that the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of ]. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.<ref name="The Federalist Papers: No. 68"/> | |||
| Another consideration was that the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place where decision makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,<ref>The ] changed this to the top three candidates,</ref> ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" attaining high office.<ref name="The Federalist Papers: No. 68"/> | |||
| Additionally, in the ], James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., ], as opposed to ]) combined with the principles of ] (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No.{{nbsp}}10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as ].<ref>''The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay'' The New American Library, 1961</ref> | |||
| Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase was first written into federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in {{USC|3|4}}, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html|title=U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions|website=archives.gov|date=September 19, 2019}}</ref> | Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase was first written into federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in {{USC|3|4}}, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html|title=U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions|website=archives.gov|date=September 19, 2019}}</ref> | ||
| == History == | == History == | ||
| {{Primary sources|section|date=February 2024}} | |||
| Initially, state legislatures chose the electors in many of the states. From the early 19th century, states progressively changed to selection by popular election. In ], there were six states in which electors were still legislatively appointed. By ], only ] had not transitioned. Since ], electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on ].<ref name=CRS2017THN/> The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through ] by the citizens.<ref>{{cite web|title=Electoral College |website=history.com|url=https://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college|publisher=A+E Networks|accessdate=August 6, 2018}}</ref> | |||
| {{anchor|EvsP}}Since the mid-19th century, when all electors have been popularly chosen, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most popular votes nationwide, except in four elections: ], ], ], and ]. In ], when there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, the true national popular vote is uncertain. The electors failed to select a winning candidate, so the matter was decided by the House of Representatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/|title=Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote|first=D'Angelo|last=Gore|date=December 23, 2016|publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| === Original plan === | === Original plan === | ||
| ] of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president. | ] of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president. | ||
| According to Stanley Chang, the original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the ]:<ref>{{cite journal |last=Chang |first=Stanley |author-link=Stanley Chang |year=2007 |title=Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation |url=http://archive.fairvote.org/media/documents/chang.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=President and Fellows of Harvard College |volume=44 |issue=205, at 208 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220304214934/http://archive.fairvote.org/media/documents/chang.pdf |archive-date=March 4, 2022 |access-date=May 28, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| # Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".<ref name="auto1">Hamilton, Alexander. , The |
# Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".<ref name="auto1">Hamilton, Alexander. , ''The Avalon Project,'' 2008. From the Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 22 Jan 2022.</ref> | ||
| # The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".<ref>Hamilton, Alexander. , National Archives, Founders Online, viewed March 2, 2019.</ref> | # The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".<ref>Hamilton, Alexander. , National Archives, Founders Online, viewed March 2, 2019.</ref> | ||
| # Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.<ref>Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations ." (Hamilton, ). Hamilton strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, ). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." ( {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525182347/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023|date=May 25, 2017}})</ref> | # Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.<ref>Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations ." (Hamilton, ). Hamilton strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, ). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." ( {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525182347/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023|date=May 25, 2017}})</ref> | ||
| # Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.<ref name="auto1"/> |
# Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.<ref name="auto1"/> | ||
| # Candidates would not pair together on the same ] with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president. | # Candidates would not pair together on the same ] with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president. | ||
| Election expert, William C. Kimberling, reflected on the original intent as follows: | Election expert, William C. Kimberling, reflected on the original intent as follows: | ||
| <blockquote>"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the ] selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."<ref>[https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php |
<blockquote>"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the ] selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."<ref>William C. Kimberling, (1992).</ref></blockquote> | ||
| According to Supreme Court justice ], in a dissenting opinion, the original intention of the framers was that the electors would not feel bound to support any particular candidate, but would vote their conscience, free of external pressure. | |||
| <blockquote>"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/214|title= |
<blockquote>"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/214|title=Ray v. Blair|website=LII / Legal Information Institute}}</ref></blockquote> | ||
| In support for his view, Justice Jackson cited ]: | |||
| <blockquote>'It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture... It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.'</blockquote> | |||
| Philip J. VanFossen of ] explains that the original purpose of the electors was not to reflect the will of the citizens, but rather to "serve as a check on a public who might be easily misled."<ref>{{Cite web |last=VanFossen |first=Phillip J. |date=November 4, 2020 |title=Who invented the Electoral College? |url=http://theconversation.com/who-invented-the-electoral-college-147083 |website=]}}</ref> | |||
| Randall Calvert, the Eagleton Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science at ], stated, "At the framing the more important consideration was that electors, expected to be more knowledgeable and responsible, would actually do the choosing."<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 6, 2020 |title=WashU Expert: Electoral College ruling contradicts Founders' 'original intent' – The Source – Washington University in St. Louis |url=https://source.wustl.edu/2020/07/washu-expert-electoral-college-ruling-contradicts-founders-original-intent/ |website=]}}</ref> | |||
| Constitutional expert Michael Signer explained that the electoral college was designed "to provide a mechanism where intelligent, thoughtful and statesmanlike leaders could deliberate on the winner of the popular vote and, if necessary, choose another candidate who would not put Constitutional values and practices at risk."<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://time.com/4575119/electoral-college-demagogues/|title=The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump|first=TIME|last=Staff|date=November 17, 2016|magazine=TIME}}</ref> ], writing for ], similarly stated, "The original conception of the Electoral College, in other words, was a body of men who could serve as a check on the uninformed mass electorate."<ref></ref> | |||
| ==== Breakdown and revision ==== | ==== Breakdown and revision ==== | ||
| In spite of Hamilton's assertion that electors were to be chosen by mass election, initially, state legislatures chose the electors in most of the states.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a2_1_2-3s6.html|title=Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: , McPherson v. Blacker|website=press-pubs.uchicago.edu}}</ref> States progressively changed to selection by popular election. In ], there were six states in which electors were still legislatively appointed. By ], only ] had not transitioned. Since ] (with the sole exception of newly admitted Colorado in 1876 for logistical reasons), electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on ].<ref name=CRS2017THN/> The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through ] by the citizens.<ref>{{cite web|title=Electoral College |website=history.com|url=https://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college|publisher=A+E Networks|access-date=August 6, 2018}}</ref> | |||
| The emergence of ] and nationally coordinated election campaigns soon complicated matters in the elections of ] and ]. In 1796, ] candidate ] won the presidential election. Finishing in second place was ] candidate ], the Federalists' opponent, who became the vice president. This resulted in the president and vice president being of different political parties. | |||
| ====The emergence of parties and campaigns==== | |||
| {{main article|Political parties in the United States}} | |||
| {{see also|George Washington's Farewell Address#Political parties}} | |||
| The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate ].<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Davis |first=Kenneth C. |title=Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned |publisher=HarperCollins |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-06-008381-6 |edition=1st |location=New York |pages=620 |author-link=Kenneth C. Davis}}</ref> Indeed ] in 1796 included an urgent appeal to avert such parties. Neither did the framers anticipate candidates "running" for president. Within just a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, however, both phenomena became permanent features of the political landscape of the United States.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}} | |||
| The emergence of ] and nationally coordinated election campaigns soon complicated matters in the elections of ] and ]. In 1796, ] candidate ] won the presidential election. Finishing in second place was ] candidate ], the Federalists' opponent, who became the vice president. This resulted in the president and vice president being of different political parties.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}} | |||
| In 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party again nominated Jefferson for president and also again nominated ] for vice president. After the electors voted, Jefferson and Burr were tied with one another with 73 electoral votes each. Since ballots did not distinguish between votes for president and votes for vice president, every ballot cast for Burr technically counted as a vote for him to become president, despite Jefferson clearly being his party's first choice. Lacking a clear winner by constitutional standards, the election had to be decided by the ] pursuant to the Constitution's contingency election provision.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}} | |||
| Having already lost the presidential contest, Federalist Party representatives in the ] House session seized upon the opportunity to embarrass their opposition by attempting to elect Burr over Jefferson. The House deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority vote of the state delegations in the House (The votes of nine states were needed for a conclusive election.). On the 36th ballot, Delaware's lone Representative, ], made it known that he intended to break the impasse for fear that failure to do so could endanger the future of the Union. Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont abstained, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson a majority.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/february-17/|title=Today in History – February 17|website=Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.}}</ref> | |||
| Responding to the problems from those elections, Congress proposed on December 9, 1803, and three-fourths of the states ratified by June 15, 1804, the ]. Starting with the ], the amendment requires electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president, replacing the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}} | |||
| ===Evolution from unpledged to pledged electors=== | |||
| Some Founding Fathers hoped that each elector would be elected by the citizens of a district<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://prospect.org/features/people-s-choice/|title=Not the People's Choice|first=Arthur Schlesinger|last=Jr|date=March 6, 2002|website=The American Prospect}}</ref> and that elector was to be free to ''analyze'' and ''deliberate'' regarding who is best suited to be president.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-TCPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124|title=Representation and the Electoral College|first=Robert M.|last=Alexander|date=April 1, 2019|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-093944-1 |via=Google Books}}</ref> | |||
| In ] Alexander Hamilton described the ] view of how electors would be chosen: {{blockquote|A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated ... They ]] have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men , who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes ; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have EXCLUDED from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office ... Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias . Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it."<ref name="Hamilton, Federalist 68">{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp|title=Federalist No. 68|publisher=The Avalon Project}}</ref>}} | |||
| However, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice ] wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."<ref>Justice Robert Jackson, </ref> According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station ."<ref name="Hamilton, Federalist 68"/> | |||
| Hamilton stated that the electors were to ''analyze'' the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." In a 2020 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court additionally cited ]'s view that the electors' choices would reflect "discretion and discernment."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-465/|title=Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)|website=Justia Law}}</ref> | |||
| Reflecting on this original intention, a U.S. Senate report in 1826 critiqued the evolution of the system: | |||
| <blockquote>It was the intention of the Constitution that these electors should be an independent body of men, chosen by the people from among themselves, on account of their superior discernment, virtue, and information; and that this select body should be left to make the election ''according to their own will'', without the slightest control from the body of the people. That this intention has failed of its object in every election, is a fact of such universal notoriety that no one can dispute it. Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution. They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be. They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment: on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents. They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless...<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=003/llrd003.db&recNum=656|title=A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875|website=memory.loc.gov}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| In 1833, Supreme Court Justice ] detailed how badly from the framers' intention the Electoral Process had been "subverted": | |||
| <blockquote>In no respect have the views of the framers of the constitution been so completely frustrated as relates to the independence of the electors in the electoral colleges. It is notorious, that the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates, and are silently pledged to vote for them. Nay, upon some occasions the electors publicly pledge themselves to vote for a particular person; and thus, in effect, the whole foundation of the system, so elaborately constructed, is subverted.<ref name="auto12">{{Cite web|url=https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s11.html|title=Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1449—52, 1454—60, 1462—67|website=press-pubs.uchicago.edu}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| In 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party again nominated Jefferson for president and also nominated ] for vice president. After the electors voted, Jefferson and Burr were tied with one another with 73 electoral votes each. Since ballots did not distinguish between votes for president and votes for vice president, every ballot cast for Burr technically counted as a vote for him to become president, despite Jefferson clearly being his party's first choice. Lacking a clear winner by constitutional standards, the election had to be decided by the ] pursuant to the Constitution's contingency election provision. | |||
| Story observed that if an elector does what the framers of the Constitution expected him to do, he would be considered immoral: | |||
| Having already lost the presidential contest, Federalist Party representatives in the ] House session seized upon the opportunity to embarrass their opposition by attempting to elect Burr over Jefferson. The House deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority vote of the state delegations in the House (The votes of nine states were needed for a conclusive election.). On the 36th ballot, Delaware's lone Representative, ], made it known that he intended to break the impasse for fear that failure to do so could endanger the future of the Union. Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont abstained, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson a majority.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/february-17/|title=Today in History - February 17|website=Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA}}</ref> | |||
| <blockquote>So, that nothing is left to the electors after their choice, but to register votes, which are already pledged; and an exercise of an independent judgment would be treated, as a political usurpation, dishonorable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents.<ref name="auto12"/></blockquote> | |||
| Responding to the problems from those elections, Congress proposed on December 9, 1803, and three-fourths of the states ratified by June 15, 1804, the ]. Starting with the ], the amendment requires electors cast separate ballots for president and vice president, replacing the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. | |||
| === Evolution to the general ticket === | === Evolution to the general ticket === | ||
| ] of the Constitution states: | ] of the Constitution states: | ||
| {{ |
{{blockquote|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.}} | ||
| According to Hamilton, Madison and others, the original intent was that this would take place district by district.<ref name="auto11">{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0289|title=Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ...|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref><ref name="auto10">{{Cite web |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023 |title=James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823 |date=May 25, 2017 |website= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525182347/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023 |archive-date=25 May 2017 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r75XAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA74|title=Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System|first=James A.|last=Michener|date=April 15, 2014|publisher=Random House Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-8041-5160-3 |via=Google Books}}</ref> The district plan was last carried out in ].<ref name="auto3">{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PiWltoZmSlYC&pg=RA5-PA402|title=Hearings|first=United States Congress|last=Senate|date=November 3, 1961|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|via=Google Books}}</ref> For example, in ] in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z0ouAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245|title=Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820; [repr|date=January 1, 1820|publisher=Boston Book Company|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NfhcDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA111|title=A Perspective on How Our Government Was Built And Some Needed Changes|first=Darrel A.|last=Nash|date=May 1, 2018|publisher=Dorrance Publishing|isbn=978-1-4809-7915-4 |via=Google Books}}</ref> In other words, the name of a candidate for president was ''not'' on the ballot. Instead, citizens voted for their local elector. | |||
| Some state leaders began to adopt the strategy that the favorite partisan presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.<ref name="fairvote.org"> |
Some state leaders began to adopt the strategy that the favorite partisan presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.<ref name="fairvote.org">{{Cite web |date=2012-08-21 |title=How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All |url=https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/ |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=FairVote |language=en}}</ref> Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.<ref name="fairvote.org"/> | ||
| When ] and ], two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. |
When ] and ], two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly.<ref name="auto11"/><ref name="auto10"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.charlatanmagazine.com/Politico/electoralcollege/index.html|title=Electoral College|website=The Charlatan | The Exposé of Politics & Style}}</ref> Madison said that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts, and it was inconceivable that a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to ]: {{blockquote|The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket .<ref name="Madison to Hay, 1823">{{cite web|url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023|title=Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525182347/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023|archive-date=May 25, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>}} | ||
| Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. However, ], insofar as it reflects the intent of the founders, states that Electors will be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass," and with regard to choosing Electors, "they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America." Several methods for selecting electors are described ]. | |||
| The Founding Fathers intended that each elector would be elected by the citizens of a district, and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president. | |||
| Madison and Hamilton were so upset by the trend to "general tickets" that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan. Hamilton drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0289|title=Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the{{nbsp}}...|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Hamilton's ] in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 prevented him from advancing his proposed reforms any further. "he election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.<ref name="Madison to Hay, 1823"/>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | |||
| Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. However, ], insofar as it reflects the intent of the founders, states that Electors will be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass," and with regard to choosing Electors, "they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America." In spite of Hamilton's perspective, several methods for selecting electors are described ]. | |||
| Madison also drafted a constitutional amendment that would insure the original "district" plan of the framers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-03-02-0109|title=Founders Online: From James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Jefferson agreed with Hamilton and Madison saying, "all agree that an election by districts would be the best."<ref name="auto3"/>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Jefferson explained to Madison's correspondent why he was doubtful of the amendment being ratified: "the states are now so numerous that I despair of ever seeing another amendment of the constitution."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3707|title=Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 17 August 1823|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | |||
| === Evolution of selection plans === | === Evolution of selection plans === | ||
| In 1789, the at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina).<ref>{{cite web|title=1788 Election For the First Term, 1789–1793|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1789_1821.html#1788| |
In 1789, the at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina).<ref>{{cite web|title=1788 Election For the First Term, 1789–1793|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1789_1821.html#1788|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060601231820/https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1789_1821.html|archive-date=June 1, 2006|website=U. S. Electoral College|publisher=U.S. National Archives|access-date=April 19, 2017}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=October 2020}}{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York's legislature deadlocked over the method of choosing electors and abstained;<ref>Stephens, Frank Fletcher. '''', ], 1909, pp. 67-74.</ref> North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.<ref>{{cite web|title=United States presidential election of 1789|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1789|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=April 19, 2017|language=en|date=September 19, 2013}}</ref> | ||
| By 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.<ref name="auto">Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, |
By 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.<ref name="auto">Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, pp. 9–10.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860.<ref name="auto"/> Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.<ref>Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, |
By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860.<ref name="auto"/>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.<ref>Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, pp. 10–11.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191297.P.pdf|title=''Batan v. McMaster'', No. 19-1297 (4th Cir., 2020), p. 5}}</ref> Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since |
Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191297.P.pdf|title=''Batan v. McMaster'', No. 19-1297 (4th Cir., 2020), p. 5}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1992) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.<ref>Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, p. 11.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| ===Correlation between popular vote and electoral college votes=== | |||
| {{anchor|EvsP}}Since the mid-19th century, when all electors have been popularly chosen, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most (though not necessarily a majority) popular votes nationwide, except in four elections: ], ], ], and ]. A case has also been made that it happened in 1960. In ], when there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, the true national popular vote is uncertain. The electors in 1824 failed to select a winning candidate, so the matter was decided by the House of Representatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/|title=Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote|first=D'Angelo|last=Gore|date=December 23, 2016|publisher=]}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable (]).|date=February 2024}} | |||
| === Three-fifths clause and the role of slavery === | === Three-fifths clause and the role of slavery === | ||
| {{POV section|date=February 2024}} | |||
| After the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting ]. On this basis after the first census, the Electoral College still gave the free men of slave-owning states (but never slaves) extra power (Electors) based on a count of these disenfranchised people, in the choice of the U.S. president.<ref>, House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. | |||
| After the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting ]. On this basis after the first census, the Electoral College still gave the free men of slave-owning states (but never slaves) extra power (Electors) based on a count of these disenfranchised people, in the choice of the U.S. president.<ref>, House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. | |||
| Unlike composition in the College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. Later a run of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the ].</ref> | Unlike composition in the College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. Later a run of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the ].</ref> | ||
| At the ], the |
At the ], the college composition, in theory, amounted to 49 votes for northern states (in the process of abolishing slavery) and 42 for slave-holding states (including Delaware). In the event, the first (i.e. 1788) presidential election lacked votes and electors for unratified Rhode Island (3) and North Carolina (7) and for New York (8) which reported too late; the Northern majority was 38 to 35.<ref>, held at the U.S. National Archives, viewed online on February 5, 2019.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} For the next two decades, the three-fifths clause led to electors of free-soil Northern states numbering 8% and 11% more than Southern states. The latter had, in the compromise, relinquished counting two-fifths of their slaves and, after 1810, were outnumbered by 15.4% to 23.2%.<ref>Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valelly, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}} p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.</ref> | ||
| While House members for Southern states were boosted by an average of {{frac|1|3}},<ref>Leonard L. Richards, (2001), referenced in a review at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online, viewed February 2, 2019.</ref> a free-soil majority in the |
While House members for Southern states were boosted by an average of {{frac|1|3}},<ref>Leonard L. Richards, (2001), referenced in a review at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online, viewed February 2, 2019.</ref> a free-soil majority in the college maintained over this early republic and Antebellum period.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, pp. 464–65, Table 16.6, "Impact of the Three-fifths Clause on the Electoral College, 1792–1860". The continuing, uninterrupted northern free-soil majority margin in the Electoral College would have been significantly smaller had slaves been counter-factually counted as whole persons, but still the South would have been a minority in the Electoral College over these sixty-eight years.</ref> Scholars conclude that the three-fifths clause had low impact on sectional proportions and factional strength, until denying the North a pronounced supermajority, as to the Northern, federal initiative to abolish slavery. The seats that the South gained from such "slave bonus" were quite evenly distributed between the parties. In the First Party System (1795–1823), the Jefferson Republicans gained 1.1 percent more adherents from the slave bonus, while the Federalists lost the same proportion. At the Second Party System (1823–1837) the emerging Jacksonians gained just 0.7% more seats, versus the opposition loss of 1.6%.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, pp. 454–55.</ref> | ||
| The three-fifths slave-count rule is associated with three or four outcomes, |
The three-fifths slave-count rule is associated with three or four outcomes, 1792–1860: | ||
| * The clause, having reduced the South's power, led to John Adams's win in 1796 over Thomas Jefferson.<ref>Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause", Chapter 15 in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.</ref> | |||
| * In 1800, historian ] argues, Jefferson's victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College as Adams would have won if citizens' votes were used for each state.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power|last=Wills|first=Garry|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|year=2005|isbn=978-0618485376|pages=1–3 |language=en}}</ref> However, historian ] points out that Jefferson's purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html|title=Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy|first=Sean|last=Wilentz|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 4, 2019|access-date=May 20, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| *The clause, having reduced the South's power, led to John Adams's win in 1796 over Thomas Jefferson.<ref>Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause", Chapter 15 in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p.454.</ref> | |||
| * In 1824, the presidential selection was passed to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was chosen over Andrew Jackson, who won fewer citizens' votes. Then Jackson won in 1828, but would have lost if the college were citizen-only apportionment. Scholars conclude that in the 1828 race, Jackson benefited materially from the Three-fifths clause by providing his margin of victory. | |||
| *In 1800, historian ] argues, Jefferson's victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College as Adams would have won if citizens' votes were used for each state.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power|last=Wills|first=Garry|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|year=2005|isbn=9780618485376|pages=1–3 |language=en}}</ref> However, historian ] points out that Jefferson's purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html|title=Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy|first=Sean|last=Wilentz|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 4, 2019|accessdate=May 20, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| *In 1824, the presidential selection was passed to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was chosen over Andrew Jackson, who won fewer citizens' votes. Then Jackson won in 1828, but would have lost if the College were citizen-only apportionment. Scholars conclude that in the 1828 race, Jackson benefited materially from the Three-fifths clause by providing his margin of victory. | |||
| The first "Jeffersonian" and "Jacksonian" victories were of great |
The first "Jeffersonian" and "Jacksonian" victories were of great importance as they ushered in sustained party majorities of several Congresses and presidential party eras.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, p. 464.</ref> | ||
| Besides the Constitution prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808 and a duty on states to return escaped "persons held to service",<ref>, online February 9, 2019. See Article I, Section 9, and in Article IV, Section 2.</ref> legal scholar ] argues that the |
Besides the Constitution prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808 and a duty on states to return escaped "persons held to service",<ref>, online February 9, 2019. See Article I, Section 9, and in Article IV, Section 2.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} legal scholar ] argues that the college was originally advocated by slaveholders as a bulwark to prop up slavery. In the Congressional apportionment provided in the text of the Constitution with its Three-Fifths Compromise estimate, "Virginia emerged as the big winner more than a quarter of the needed to win an election in the first round ." Following the ], the most populous state was Virginia, with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.<ref>, Chapter III in "A Century of Population Growth from the first Census", volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia's...population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633. (p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p. 82.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| "The "free" state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia but got 20% fewer electoral votes."<ref name="amar2">{{cite magazine|last1=Amar|first1=Akhil|title= The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists|url=https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/|magazine=Time|date=November 10, 2016}}</ref> Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population.<ref>, National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Historian ] agrees the Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise gave protection to slavery.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery|last=Foner|first=Eric|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|page=16|year=2010|isbn=978-0393080827|language=en}}</ref> | |||
| Supporters of the College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. ], the president who helped abolish slavery, won a College majority in ] despite winning 39.8% of citizen's votes.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Guelzo|first1=Adam|last2=Hulme|first2=James|title=In Defense of the Electoral College|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/?|work=The Washington Post|date=November 15, 2016}}</ref> This, however, was a clear plurality of a popular vote divided among four main candidates. | |||
| Supporters of the College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. ], the president who helped abolish slavery, won a College majority in ] despite winning 39.8% of citizen's votes.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Guelzo|first1=Adam|last2=Hulme|first2=James|title=In Defense of the Electoral College|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/?|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=November 15, 2016}}</ref> This, however, was a clear plurality of a popular vote divided among four main candidates. | |||
| Benner notes that Jefferson's first margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted on a ''per capita'' basis.<ref name="benner"/> He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including ] of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and ] of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".<ref name=benner>{{cite web|last1=Benner|first1=Dave|title= Cherry Picking James Madison|url=https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/cherry-picking-james-madison/ |work=Abbeville Institute|date=November 15, 2016}}</ref> Delegates ] and ] of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized a national popular vote.<ref name=benner/> Of like view was ], a member of Adams' ], presidential candidate in 1800. He hailed from South Carolina and was a slaveholder.<ref name=benner/> In ], ], a slaveholder from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by ], a strong ].<ref name=benner/> | |||
| Benner notes that Jefferson's first margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted on a ''per capita'' basis.<ref name="benner"/> He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including ] of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and ] of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".<ref name="benner">{{cite web |last1=Benner |first1=Dave |date=November 15, 2016 |title=Blog: Cherry Picking James Madison |url=https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/cherry-picking-james-madison/ |work=] |type=}}</ref> | |||
| === Fourteenth Amendment === | |||
| Delegates ] and ] of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized a national popular vote.<ref name=benner/> Of like view was ], a member of Adams' ], presidential candidate in 1800. He hailed from South Carolina and was a slaveholder.<ref name=benner/> In ], ], a slaveholder from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by ], a strong ].<ref name=benner/> | |||
| === Fourteenth amendment === | |||
| ] requires a state's representation in the ] to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote. | ] requires a state's representation in the ] to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote. | ||
| On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, ], the leader of the ] in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:<ref> (archived from on 2011-10-27)</ref> | On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, ], the leader of the ] in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:<ref> (archived from on 2011-10-27)</ref> | ||
| {{ |
{{blockquote|The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.<ref>The selected papers of Thaddeus Stevens, v. 2, Stevens, Thaddeus, 1792–1868, Palmer, Beverly Wilson, 1936, Ochoa, Holly Byers, 1951, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Digital Research Library, 2011, pp. 135–36.</ref>}} | ||
| Federal law ({{usc|2|6}}) implements Section 2's mandate. | Federal law ({{usc|2|6}}) implements Section 2's mandate. | ||
| === |
=== Meeting of electors === | ||
| {{ |
{{See also|Electoral Count Act}} | ||
| ]]] | |||
| ] of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. And both ] and the ] that replaced it specifies that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." | |||
| Congress passed the ] |
In 1887, Congress passed the ], now codified in ] of the United States Code, establishing specific procedures for the counting of the electoral votes. The law was passed in response to the disputed ], in which several states submitted competing slates of electors. Among its provisions, the law established deadlines that the states must meet when selecting their electors, resolving disputes, and when they must cast their electoral votes.<ref name=CRS/><ref>{{cite web|first=Edward-Isaac|last=Dovere|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-biden-electoral-count-act-1887/615994/|title=The Deadline That Could Hand Trump the Election|publisher=The Atlantic|date=2020-09-09|access-date=2020-11-09}}</ref> | ||
| From 1948 to 2022, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College was "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".<ref>{{cite web|title=U.S.C. Title 3 - THE PRESIDENT | url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title3/html/USCODE-2011-title3-chap1-sec7.htm|date=2011|access-date=2024-06-28}}</ref> As of 2022, with the passing of "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022", this was changed to be "on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".<ref name="electoral2022"/> | |||
| === Meeting of electors === | |||
| ] of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. Since 1936, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".<ref>] 7</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/PresidentialElectionEvents.phtml |title=Dates of U.S. Presidential Election "Events": 1789 to the present|website=The Green Papers}}</ref> | |||
| Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed ] from being electors. The ] is charged with administering the Electoral College.<ref name="Zak">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-electoral-college-isnt-a-real-place-but-someone-has-to-answer-its-phones-these-days/2016/11/16/816f3838-aaa7-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html|title=The electoral college isn't a real place: But someone has to answer all the angry phone calls these days |first=Dan|last=Zak|date=November 16, 2016|newspaper=Washington Post | |
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed ] from being electors. The ] is charged with administering the Electoral College.<ref name="Zak">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-electoral-college-isnt-a-real-place-but-someone-has-to-answer-its-phones-these-days/2016/11/16/816f3838-aaa7-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html|title=The electoral college isn't a real place: But someone has to answer all the angry phone calls these days |first=Dan|last=Zak|date=November 16, 2016|newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=November 21, 2016}}</ref> | ||
| After the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a ], held |
After the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a ], held on January 6<ref>{{usc|3|15}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} unless another date is specified by law, and read aloud by the incumbent vice president, acting in his capacity as ''president of the Senate''. If any person receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, that person is declared the winner.<ref>{{cite web|title=What is the Electoral College?|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html|work=U.S. Electoral College|publisher=]|location=Washington, D.C.|access-date=August 2, 2018}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} If there is a tie, or if no candidate for either or both offices receives an absolute majority, then choice falls to Congress in a procedure known as a ]. | ||
| == Modern mechanics == | == Modern mechanics == | ||
| ] officially announces the state's electors for the Electoral College. The appointed Electoral College members later meet in the state capital in December to cast their votes.]] | |||
| ] | |||
| === Summary === | === Summary === | ||
| Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the ], the people only ] the ]. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and ] Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the ], the majority of states have chosen their presidential electors based on ] results in the statewide popular vote on ].<ref name="FVWTA">{{cite web|last1=McCarthy|first1=Devin|title=How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All|url=http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/|website=Fairvote| |
Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the ], the people only ] the ] and ]. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and ] Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the ], the majority of states have chosen their presidential electors based on ] results in the statewide popular vote on ].<ref name="FVWTA">{{cite web|last1=McCarthy|first1=Devin|title=How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All|url=http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/|website=Fairvote|access-date=November 22, 2014|archive-date=March 10, 2014|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20140310172659/http%3A//www.fairvote.org/research%2Dand%2Danalysis/blog/how%2Dthe%2Delectoral%2Dcollege%2Dbecame%2Dwinner%2Dtake%2Dall/|url-status=dead}}</ref> | ||
| {{as of|2020}}, ] and ] are exceptions as both use the ], Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992.<ref name="ecollege" /> In most states, the popular vote ]s list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ]). The slate of electors that represent the winning ticket will vote for those two offices. Electors are nominated by the party and, usually, they vote for the ticket to which are promised.{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-11-11|title=The Electoral College |url=https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx |access-date=2020-11-15 |website=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref> | |||
| Many states require an elector to vote for the candidate to which the elector is pledged, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting. A candidate must receive an ] of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a ] established by the ]. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote winners as vice president. | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| A candidate must receive an ] of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a ] established by the ]. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote winners as vice president. | |||
| === Electors === | === Electors === | ||
| ==== Apportionment ==== | ==== Apportionment ==== | ||
| {{further|United States congressional apportionment}} | {{further|United States congressional apportionment}} | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the ].<ref>The present allotment of electors by state is shown in the ''Electoral vote distribution'' section.</ref><ref>The number of electors allocated to each state is based on ] of the Constitution, subject to being reduced pursuant to ].</ref> |
A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the ].<ref>The present allotment of electors by state is shown in the ''Electoral vote distribution'' section.</ref><ref>The number of electors allocated to each state is based on ] of the Constitution, subject to being reduced pursuant to ].</ref> Each state is entitled to at least one representative, the remaining number of representatives per state is ] based on their respective populations, determined every ten years by the ]. In summary, 153 electors are divided equally among the states and the District of Columbia (3 each), and the remaining 385 are assigned by an apportionment among states.<ref> U.S. 2020 Census.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| Under the ], ], is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state but no more electors than the least populous state. Because the least populous state (], |
Under the ], ], is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state but no more electors than the least populous state. Because the least populous state (], in the 2020 census) has three electors, D.C. cannot have more than three electors. Even if D.C. were a state, its population would entitle it to only three electors. Based on its population per electoral vote, D.C. has the third highest per capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming and Vermont.<ref> U.S. 2020 Census.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| Currently, there are 538 electors, based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are ] ( |
Currently, there are 538 electors, based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are ] (54), ] (40), ] (30), ] (28), ] (19), and ] (19). The District of Columbia and the six least populous states—], ], ], ], ], and ]—have three electors each.<ref> U.S. National Archives.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| ==== Nominations ==== | ==== Nominations ==== | ||
| The custom of allowing recognized ] to select a ] of prospective electors developed early. In contemporary practice, each ] has an associated slate of potential electors. Then on Election Day, the voters select a ticket and thereby select the associated electors.<ref name=CRS2017THN/> | The custom of allowing recognized ] to select a ] of prospective electors developed early. In contemporary practice, each ] has an associated slate of potential electors. Then on Election Day, the voters select a ticket and thereby select the associated electors.<ref name=CRS2017THN/> | ||
| Candidates for elector are nominated by state chapters of nationally oriented political parties in the months prior to ]. In some states, the electors are nominated by voters in primaries the same way other presidential candidates are nominated. In some states, such as ], ], and ], electors are nominated in party conventions. In ], the campaign committee of each candidate names their respective electoral college candidates |
Candidates for elector are nominated by state chapters of nationally oriented political parties in the months prior to ]. In some states, the electors are nominated by voters in primaries the same way other presidential candidates are nominated. In some states, such as ], ], and ], electors are nominated in party conventions. In ], the campaign committee of each candidate names their respective electoral college candidates, an attempt to discourage ]s. Varying by state, electors may also be elected by state legislatures or appointed by the parties themselves.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 25, 2016 |title=How is the president elected? Here is a basic guide to the electoral college system |url=https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/how-is-the-president-elected-here-is-a-basic-guide-to-the-electoral-college-system/ |website=]}}</ref>{{Unreliable fringe source|date=February 2024}} | ||
| ==== Selection process ==== | ==== Selection process ==== | ||
| ] of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding |
] of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, from being an elector.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/ClevelandPlainDealer10-29-2004.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110710171414/http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/ClevelandPlainDealer10-29-2004.pdf|archive-date=July 10, 2011|title=Brown learns he can't serve as Kerry elector, steps down|publisher=Cleveland Plain Dealer (reprint at Edison Research)|author=Sabrina Eaton|date=October 29, 2004|access-date=January 3, 2008}}</ref> Under ], any person who has sworn an ] to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each house. | ||
| All states currently choose presidential electors by popular vote. As of 2020, eight states{{Efn|Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee|name=|group=}} |
All states currently choose presidential electors by popular vote. As of 2020, eight states{{Efn|Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee|name=|group=}} name the electors on the ballot. Mostly, the "short ballot" is used. The short ballot displays the names of the candidates for president and vice president, rather than the names of prospective electors.<ref>{{cite book|author=Darrell J. Kozlowski|title=Federalism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KR7VxjvSod8C|year=2010|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=978-1-60413-218-2|pages=}}</ref> Some states support voting for ]s. Those that do may require pre-registration of write-in candidacy, with designation of electors being done at that time.<ref>{{cite web |title=Write-in Votes |url=https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Feature_stories/write-ins.html |access-date=August 3, 2020 |website=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/write-in-votes/|title= Planning to write in Paul Ryan or Bernie Sanders? It won't count in most states.|date=November 3, 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> Since 1992, all but two states have followed the {{nowrap|]}} method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors.<ref name=fairvote20180801 /><ref>{{cite web|title=About the Electors|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html|work=U.S. Electoral College|publisher=]|location=Washington, D.C.|access-date=August 2, 2018}}</ref> | ||
| ] and ] are the only states not using this method.<ref name="ecollege">{{Cite web|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm|title=The Electoral College – Maine and Nebraska|publisher=FairVote|access-date=November 16, 2011|archive-date=October 12, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111012191923/http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> In those states, the winner of the popular vote in each of its ] is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electors.<ref name=fairvote20180801>{{cite web|title=Maine & Nebraska|url=http://www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska|website=FairVote|location=Takoma Park, Maryland|access-date=August 1, 2018|archive-date=August 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180802041058/http://www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska |url=https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/ |access-date=August 1, 2018 |website=] |publisher=}}</ref> This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992. The ] previously upheld the power for a state to choose electors on the basis of congressional districts, holding that states possess ] to decide how electors are appointed in '']'', {{ussc|146|1|1892}}. | |||
| The Tuesday following the first Monday in November has been fixed as the day for holding federal elections, called the ].<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|3|1}} A uniform national date for presidential elections was not set until 1845, although the Congress always had constitutional authority to do so. — Kimberling, William C. (1992) </ref> After the election, each state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment, each listing the candidates for president and vice president, their pledged electors, and the total votes each candidacy received.<ref name="electcollinstr">{{cite web|publisher=National Archives and Records Administration|title=Electoral College Instructions to State Officials|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/resources/state-officials-instructions.pdf|accessdate=22 January 2014}}</ref> One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the ] in Washington. The Certificates of Ascertainment are mandated to carry the state seal and the signature of the governor (or ] of D.C.).<ref> (archived from on 2006-03-05)</ref> | |||
| The Tuesday following the first Monday in November has been fixed as the day for holding federal elections, called the ].<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|3|1}} A uniform national date for presidential elections was not set until 1845, although the Congress always had constitutional authority to do so. — Kimberling, William C. (1992) </ref> After the election, each state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment, each listing the candidates for president and vice president, their pledged electors, and the total votes each candidacy received.<ref name="electcollinstr">{{cite web|publisher=National Archives and Records Administration|title=Electoral College Instructions to State Officials|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/resources/state-officials-instructions.pdf|access-date=January 22, 2014}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the ] in Washington. The Certificates of Ascertainment are mandated to carry the state seal and the signature of the governor, or ] of D.C.<ref> (archived from on 2006-03-05)</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | |||
| ==== Meetings ==== | ==== Meetings ==== | ||
| ] and |
] | ||
| {{external media | {{external media | ||
| | float = right | | float = right | ||
| | image1 = ( |
| image1 = (Biden's name is handwritten on the blank line). ''Reuters''. December 14, 2020. | ||
| | image2 = (using a format in which |
| image2 = (using a format in which Harris's name is checked on the pre-printed card). ''The New Yorker''. December 18, 2020. | ||
| | video1 = , YouTube video. '' |
| video1 = , YouTube video. ''Reuters''. December 14, 2020. | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| The Electoral College never meets as one body. Electors meet in their respective ] (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the same day (set by Congress as the |
The Electoral College never meets as one body. Electors meet in their respective ] (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the same day (set by Congress as the Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December) at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/|title=Twelfth Amendment|work=]|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment23/|title=Twenty-third Amendment|work=]|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/3/1/7|title=U.S.C. § 7 : US Code – Section 7: Meeting and vote of electors|work=]|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}<ref name="electoral2022"/> | ||
| Although procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow. The meeting is opened by the election certification |
Although procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, {{citation needed span|and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow.|date=March 2021}} The meeting is opened by the election certification official—often that state's ] or equivalent—who reads the ]. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the electoral votes. The attendance of the electors is taken and any vacancies are noted in writing. The next step is the selection of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many states, political officials give short speeches at this point in the proceedings.{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| When the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for president of the political party of the electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in ] for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card |
When the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for president of the political party of the electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in ] for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card. In ], the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. The next step is the casting of the vote for vice president, which follows a similar pattern.{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| Under the |
Under the Electoral Count Act (updated and codified in {{usc|3|9}}), each state's electors must complete six certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote (or ''Certificate of the Vote'') must be signed by all of the electors and a certificate of ascertainment must be attached to each of the certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote must include the names of those who received an electoral vote for either the office of president or of vice president. The electors certify the Certificates of Vote, and copies of the certificates are then sent in the following fashion:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote|title=U.S. Electoral College – For State Officials|publisher=National Archives and Records Administration|access-date=November 7, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025053914/http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote|archive-date=October 25, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| * One is sent by ] to the ] (who usually is the incumbent ]); | * One is sent by ] to the ] (who usually is the incumbent ]); | ||
| * Two are sent by registered mail to the ]; | * Two are sent by registered mail to the ]; | ||
| * Two are sent to the state's |
* Two are sent to the ]; and | ||
| * One is sent to the chief judge of the ] where those electors met. | * One is sent to the chief judge of the ] where those electors met. | ||
| A staff member of the |
A staff member of the president of the Senate collects the certificates of vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of the Congress. The certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. ] through ] (including the ]) are placed in one box and ] through ] are placed in the other box.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28555802|title=Congress meets to count electoral votes|agency=]|date=January 9, 2009|website=]|access-date=April 5, 2012}}</ref> | ||
| Before 1950, the ]'s office oversaw the certifications. Since then, the Office of Federal Register in the Archivist's office reviews them to make sure the documents sent to the archive and Congress match, and that all formalities have been followed, sometimes requiring states to correct the documents.<ref name=Zak/> | |||
| ==== Faithless electors ==== | ==== Faithless electors ==== | ||
| {{main|Faithless elector}} | {{main|Faithless elector}} | ||
| An elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector.<ref>{{cite book| |
An elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector.<ref>{{cite book|last=Kuroda|first=Tadahisa|year=1994|title=The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic, 1787–1804|publisher=Greenwood|isbn=978-0-313-29151-7|page=168}}</ref> A "faithless elector" is one who does not cast an electoral vote for the candidate of the party for whom that elector pledged to vote. Faithless electors are comparatively rare because electors are generally chosen among those who are already personally committed to a party and party's candidate.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Johnson |first=Linda S. |date=November 2, 2020 |title=Electors seldom go rogue in casting a state's votes for president |language=en-US |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/verify-faithless-electors-rare/507-8f5e13fb-2dc8-4ad3-93b0-c2c4b31ffebe |access-date=2020-11-09}}</ref> | ||
| Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. Altogether, 23,529 electors have taken part in the Electoral College as of the 2016 election; only 165 electors have cast votes for someone other than their party's nominee. Of that group, 71 did so because the nominee had died{{snd}}63 Democratic Party electors in ], when presidential nominee ] died; and eight Republican Party electors in ], when vice presidential nominee ] died.<ref>{{cite web|title=Faithless Electors|last=Penrose|first=Drew|date=March 19, 2020|url=https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors|website=Fair Vote|accessdate=March 19, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| Thirty-three ] plus the ] have laws against faithless electors,<ref>{{cite web|title=Faithless Elector State Laws|url=https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws|website=Fair Vote|access-date=July 25, 2020}}</ref> which were first enforced after the 2016 election, where ] to their pledges. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. Altogether, 23,529 electors have taken part in the Electoral College as of the 2016 election. Only 165 electors have cast votes for someone other than their party's nominee. Of that group, 71 did so because the nominee had died{{snd}}63 Democratic Party electors in ], when presidential nominee ] died; and eight Republican Party electors in ], when vice presidential nominee ] died.<ref>{{cite web|title=Faithless Electors|last=Penrose|first=Drew|date=March 19, 2020|url=https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors|website=Fair Vote|access-date=March 19, 2020|archive-date=February 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210209184600/https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
| While faithless electors have never changed the outcome of any presidential election, there are two occasions where the vice presidential election has been influenced by faithless electors: | |||
| * In the ], 18 electors pledged to the Federalist Party ticket cast their first vote as pledged for John Adams, electing him president, but did not cast their second vote for his running mate Thomas Pinckney. As a result, Adams attained 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68, and Pinckney received 59, meaning Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, became vice president.<ref>Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin, 2004. p. 514.</ref> | |||
| While faithless electors have never changed the outcome of any presidential election, there are two occasions where the vice presidential election has been influenced by faithless electors: | |||
| * In the ], Virginia's 23 electors, who were pledged to ], voted instead for former U.S. Senator ], which left Johnson one vote short of the majority needed to be elected. In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election was held in the Senate between the top two receivers of electoral votes, Johnson and ], for vice president, with Johnson being elected on the first ballot.<ref name=SB12192016NCC>{{cite web|last=Bomboy|first=Scott|title=The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference|date=December 19, 2016|url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-one-election-where-faithless-electors-made-a-difference|work=Constitution Daily|publisher=National Constitution Center|location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|accessdate=March 17, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| * In the ], 18 electors pledged to the Federalist Party ticket cast their first vote as pledged for John Adams, electing him president, but did not cast their second vote for his running mate Thomas Pinckney. As a result, Adams attained 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68, and Pinckney received 59, meaning Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, became vice president.<ref>Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin, 2004. p. 514.</ref> | |||
| Some constitutional scholars argued that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/qanda-electors-almost-always-follow-the-vote-in-their-state/2016/11/19/946f3906-ae76-11e6-8f19-21a1c65d2043_story.html|title=Q&A: Electors almost always follow the vote in their state|last=Barrow|first=Bill|date=November 19, 2016|newspaper=The Washington Post|accessdate=November 19, 2016}}</ref> However, the ] has consistently ruled that state restrictions are allowed under the Constitution. In '']'', {{ussc|343|214|1952}}, the Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. In '']'', (2020), and a related case, the Court held that electors must vote in accord with their state's laws.<ref>{{Cite news|date=July 6, 2020|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-faithless-electors-can-t-go-rogue-electoral-n1231394|title=Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College|website=NBC News|last=Williams|first=Pete|accessdate=July 6, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Howe|first=Amy|date=July 6, 2020|title=Opinion analysis: Court upholds “faithless elector” laws|work=SCOTUSblog|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/opinion-analysis-court-upholds-faithless-elector-laws/|access-date=July 6, 2020}}</ref> Faithless electors also may face censure from their political party, as they are usually chosen based on their perceived party loyalty.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Guzmán|first=Natasha|date=October 22, 2016|title=How Are Electors Selected For The Electoral College? This Historic Election Process Decides The Winner|url=https://www.bustle.com/articles/191061-how-are-electors-selected-for-the-electoral-college-this-historic-election-process-decides-the-winner|access-date=July 6, 2020|website=Bustle}}</ref> | |||
| * In the ], Virginia's 23 electors, who were pledged to ], voted instead for former U.S. senator ], which left Johnson one vote short of the majority needed to be elected. In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election was held in the Senate between the top two receivers of electoral votes, Johnson and ], for vice president, with Johnson being elected on the first ballot.<ref name=SB12192016NCC>{{cite web|last=Bomboy|first=Scott|title=The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference|date=December 19, 2016|url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-one-election-where-faithless-electors-made-a-difference|work=Constitution Daily|publisher=National Constitution Center|location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|access-date=March 17, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| Some constitutional scholars argued that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/qanda-electors-almost-always-follow-the-vote-in-their-state/2016/11/19/946f3906-ae76-11e6-8f19-21a1c65d2043_story.html|title=Q&A: Electors almost always follow the vote in their state|last=Barrow|first=Bill|date=November 19, 2016|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=November 19, 2016|archive-date=November 20, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161120011352/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/qanda-electors-almost-always-follow-the-vote-in-their-state/2016/11/19/946f3906-ae76-11e6-8f19-21a1c65d2043_story.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> However, the ] has consistently ruled that state restrictions are allowed under the Constitution. In '']'', {{ussc|343|214|1952}}, the court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. In '']'', (2020), and a related case, the court held that electors must vote in accord with their state's laws.<ref>{{Cite news|date=July 6, 2020|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-faithless-electors-can-t-go-rogue-electoral-n1231394|title=Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College|website=NBC News|last=Williams|first=Pete|access-date=July 6, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Howe|first=Amy|date=July 6, 2020|title=Opinion analysis: Court upholds 'faithless elector' laws|work=SCOTUSblog|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/opinion-analysis-court-upholds-faithless-elector-laws/|access-date=July 6, 2020}}</ref> Faithless electors also may face censure from their political party, as they are usually chosen based on their perceived party loyalty.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Guzmán|first=Natasha|date=October 22, 2016|title=How Are Electors Selected For The Electoral College? This Historic Election Process Decides The Winner|url=https://www.bustle.com/articles/191061-how-are-electors-selected-for-the-electoral-college-this-historic-election-process-decides-the-winner|access-date=July 6, 2020|website=Bustle}}</ref> | |||
| === Joint session of Congress === | === Joint session of Congress === | ||
| {{main|Electoral Count Act}} | {{main|Electoral Count Act|Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act}} | ||
| {{external media | {{external media | ||
| | float = right | | float = right | ||
| | video1 = , YouTube video. |
| video1 = , YouTube video. Global News. January 6, 2021. | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| The ] mandates Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.<ref>"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." , National Archives and Records Administration</ref> The session is ordinarily required to take place on January{{nbsp}}6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.<ref name="3USC15">{{usc|3|15}}, ''Counting electoral votes in Congress''</ref> Since the ], the newly elected Congress declares the winner of the election |
The ] mandates Congress assemble in ] to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.<ref>"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." , National Archives and Records Administration.</ref> The session is ordinarily required to take place on January{{nbsp}}6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.<ref name="3USC15">{{usc|3|15}}, ''Counting electoral votes in Congress''.</ref> Since the ], the newly elected joint Congress declares the winner of the election. All elections before ] were determined by the outgoing House. | ||
| The ] is charged with administering the Electoral College.<ref name="Zak"/> The meeting is held at 1{{nbsp}}p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.<ref name="3USC15" /> The sitting vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the ] has chaired the proceedings. The vice president and the ] sit at the podium, with the vice president in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the senators and representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote (normally one member of each political party). Relevant portions of the certificate of vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order. | |||
| Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. An objection supported by at least one senator and one representative will be followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each House of Congress; after both Houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed. | |||
| The ] is charged with administering the Electoral College.<ref name="Zak"/> The meeting is held at 1{{nbsp}}p.m. in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.<ref name="3USC15" /> The sitting vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the ] has chaired the proceedings. The vice president and the ] sit at the podium, with the vice president sitting to the right of the speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the senators and representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote, normally one member of each political party. Relevant portions of the certificate of vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order. | |||
| A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection, meaning the votes from the State in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted. | |||
| Before ] to the law in 2022, members of Congress could object to any state's vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. In 2022, the number of members required to make an objection was raised to one-fifth of each house. An appropriately made objection is followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each house of Congress. After both houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed. | |||
| In ], all of the votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected, and in ], all of the votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected.<ref>{{cite book|author=David A. McKnight|title=The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1Z2d29DZj9gC|year=1878|publisher=Wm. S. Hein Publishing|isbn=978-0-8377-2446-1|page=}}</ref> | |||
| A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both houses of Congress vote to accept the objection via a simple majority,<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-12-15|title=EXPLAINER: How Congress will count Electoral College votes|url=https://apnews.com/article/congress-count-electoral-college-vote-5605532631a251ac8f902d1d1ca55428|access-date=2020-12-19|website=AP NEWS}}</ref> meaning the votes from the state in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted. | |||
| Objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it did occur during the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and the vice president of the United States, Al Gore. Gore, who as vice president was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised by only several representatives and would have favored his candidacy, after no senators would agree to jointly object. Objections were again raised in the vote count of the 2004 elections, and on that occasion the document was presented by one representative and one senator. Although the joint session was suspended, the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both Houses of Congress. | |||
| If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a state's votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally. | If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a state's votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally. | ||
| After the certificates from all states are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final state of the vote. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and of the vice president-elect. The senators then depart from the House |
After the certificates from all states are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final state of the vote. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and of the vice president-elect. The senators then depart from the House chamber. The final tally is printed in the Senate and House journals. | ||
| ==== Historical objections and rejections ==== | |||
| Objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it has occurred a few times. | |||
| * In ], all votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected because of the ]. | |||
| * In ], all votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected, due to allegations of electoral fraud, and due to submitting votes for ].<ref>{{cite book|author=David A. McKnight|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1Z2d29DZj9gC|title=The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It|publisher=Wm. S. Hein Publishing|year=1878|isbn=978-0-8377-2446-1|page=}}</ref> | |||
| * After the crises of the ], where in a few states it was claimed there were two competing state governments, and thus competing slates of electors, Congress adopted the Electoral Count Act to regularize objection procedure.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Blakemore |first=Erin |date=2021-01-05 |title=The 1876 election was the most divisive in U.S. history. Here's how Congress responded. |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2021/01/1876-election-most-divisive-united-states-history-how-congress-responded/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106004740/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2021/01/1876-election-most-divisive-united-states-history-how-congress-responded/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 6, 2021 |magazine=National Geographic |language=en}}</ref> | |||
| * During the vote count in 2001 after the close ] between Governor ] of Texas and Vice President ]. The election had been controversial, and its outcome was decided by the court case '']''. Gore, who as vice president was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised by representatives and would have favored his candidacy, after no senators would agree to jointly object. | |||
| * Objections were raised in the vote count of the ], alleging voter suppression and machine irregularities in Ohio, and on that occasion one representative and one senator objected, following protocols mandated by the Electoral Count Act. The joint session was suspended as outlined in these protocols, and the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both houses of Congress. | |||
| * Eleven objections were raised during ] for the ], all by various Democratic representatives. As no senator joined the representatives in any objection, all objections were blocked by Vice President ].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Williams |first1=Brenna |title=11 times electoral vote count was interrupted |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html |access-date=28 June 2022 |work=CNN}}</ref> | |||
| * In the ], there were ], and the proceeding was interrupted by an ] by supporters of outgoing President ]. Objections to the votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania were each raised by a House member and a senator, and triggered separate debate in each chamber, but were soundly defeated.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-01-06|title=The House just rejected an objection to Pennsylvania's electoral vote|url=https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/congress-electoral-college-vote-count-2021/h_1dfb60b6ce44275f175e4812339016a2|access-date=2021-01-07|website=CNN|language=en}}</ref> A few House members raised objections to the votes from Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, but they could not move forward because no senator joined in those objections.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/01/07/objections-to-three-swing-states-electors-fall-flat-after-senators-refuse-to-participate-hawley-forces-debate-on-pennsylvania/?sh=3120211132c9|title=Objections To Four Swing States' Electors Fall Flat After Senators Refuse To Participate; Hawley Forces Debate On Pennsylvania | |||
| |date=January 7, 2020|website=forbes.com}}</ref> | |||
| === Contingencies === | === Contingencies === | ||
| Line 239: | Line 300: | ||
| ==== Contingent presidential election by House ==== | ==== Contingent presidential election by House ==== | ||
| If no candidate for president receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes), then the ] requires the ] to go into session immediately to choose a president. In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes ''en bloc''—each delegation having a single vote. The District of Columbia does not get to vote. | |||
| A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., from 1959, which is the last time a new state was admitted to the union, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the ''president-elect''. Delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president. | |||
| The House of Representatives has |
The House of Representatives has been required to choose the president only twice: in ] under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; and in ] under the Twelfth Amendment. | ||
| ==== Contingent vice presidential election by Senate ==== | ==== Contingent vice presidential election by Senate ==== | ||
| If no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the ] must go into session to |
If no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the ] must go into session to choose a vice president. The Senate is limited to choosing from the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. Normally this would mean two candidates, one less than the number of candidates available in the House vote. | ||
| However, the text is written in such a way that ''all'' candidates with the most and second-most electoral votes are eligible for the Senate election—this number could theoretically be larger than two. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each senator, not by state delegations). Two-thirds of the senators must be present for voting to take place. | |||
| Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/government/gov-39.cfm#_1_8|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628231654/http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/government/gov-39.cfm|archivedate=June 28, 2011|title=RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001|publisher=Ncseonline.org|accessdate=August 26, 2010}}</ref> Further, the language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Longley|first=Lawrence D.|last2=Pierce|first2=Neal R.|title=The Electoral College Primer 2000|place=New Haven, CT|journal=Yale University Press|year=1999|page=13}}</ref> although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/storm.htm|work=USA Today|title=Election evolves into 'perfect' electoral storm|date=December 12, 2000|accessdate=June 8, 2016|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060515165111/http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/storm.htm|archivedate=May 15, 2006}}</ref> | |||
| The Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators, currently 51 of 100, is necessary for election.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/government/gov-39.cfm#_1_8|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628231654/http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/government/gov-39.cfm|archive-date=June 28, 2011|title=RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001|publisher=Ncseonline.org|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref> The language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Longley|first1=Lawrence D.|last2=Peirce|first2=Neal R.|title=The Electoral College Primer 2000|place=New Haven, CT|journal=Yale University Press|year=1999|page=13}}</ref> although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/storm.htm|work=USA Today|title=Election evolves into 'perfect' electoral storm|date=December 12, 2000|access-date=June 8, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060515165111/http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/storm.htm|archive-date=May 15, 2006}}</ref> | |||
| The only time the Senate chose the vice president was in ]. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical ] and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "f a majority of the number of senators shall vote for either the said ] or ], he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States"; the Senate chose Johnson.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=026/llsj026.db&recNum=228&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28sj0262%29%29%3A%230260003&linkText=1|title=Senate Journal from 1837|publisher=Memory.loc.gov|accessdate=August 26, 2010}}</ref> | |||
| The only time the Senate chose the vice president was in ]. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical ] and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "f a majority of the number of senators shall vote for either the said ] or ], he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States"; the Senate chose Johnson.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=026/llsj026.db&recNum=228&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28sj0262%29%29%3A%230260003&linkText=1|title=Senate Journal from 1837|publisher=Memory.loc.gov|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref> | |||
| ==== Deadlocked election ==== | ==== Deadlocked election ==== | ||
| Section 3 of the |
Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a ''president-elect'' in time for the inauguration (noon ] on January 20), then the ''vice president-elect'' becomes ] until the House selects a president. Section{{nbsp}}3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. Under the ], the ] would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. Neither of these situations has ever arisen to this day. | ||
| ====Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power==== | |||
| {{See also|List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots|l1=United States presidential assassination attempts and plots|United States federal government continuity of operations}} | |||
| In ''Federalist No. 68'', Alexander Hamilton argued that one concern that led the Constitutional Convention to create the Electoral College was to ensure ] and ] during ].{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=410}}{{efn|"It was ... peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. ... precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of ''several'', to form an intermediate body of Electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community, with any extraordinary or violent movements... the Electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated them the People, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."}} While recognizing that the question had not been presented in the case, the ] stated in the majority opinion in '']'' (2020) that "nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate" after noting that more than one-third of the cumulative faithless elector votes in U.S. presidential elections history were cast during the ] when ] and ] nominee ] died after the ] and vote tabulations were completed by the states but before the Electoral College cast its ballots, and acknowledging the petitioners concern about the potential turmoil that the death of a presidential candidate between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings could cause.<ref>{{ussc|name=Chiafalo v. Washington|volume=591|year=2020|docket=19-465|slip=16–17}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|last=Shelly|first=Jacob D.|date=July 10, 2020|title=Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors|publisher=Congressional Research Service|page=3|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10515|access-date=July 10, 2023}}</ref> | |||
| In 1872, Greeley carried the popular vote in 6 states (], ], ], ], ], and ]) and had 66 electoral votes pledged to him. After his death on November 29, 1872, 63 of the electors pledged to him voted faithlessly, while 3 votes (from Georgia) that remained pledged to him were rejected at the Electoral College vote count on February 12, 1873, on the grounds that he had died.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=4}}{{sfn|Senate Journal 42(3)|pp=334–337}} Greeley's running mate, ], still received the 3 electoral votes from Georgia for vice president that were rejected for Greeley. This brought Brown's number of electoral votes for vice president to 47 since he still received all 28 electoral votes from Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas, and 16 other electoral votes from Georgia, Kentucky, and Missouri in total. The other 19 electors from the latter states voted faithlessly for vice president.{{sfn|Senate Journal 42(3)|p=346}} | |||
| During the ] following the ], ] had to arrive in Washington, D.C. in disguise and on an altered train schedule after the ] found evidence that suggested a ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Donald|first=David Herbert|author-link=David Herbert Donald|year=1996|title=Lincoln|publisher=Simon and Schuster|location=New York, New York|pages=273–279|url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=fuTY3mxs9awC}}|isbn=978-0-684-82535-9}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Holzer|first=Harold|title=Lincoln President-elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter, 1860-1861|year=2008|page=378|publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-0-7432-8947-4}}</ref> During the ] following the ], an ] anarchist group plotted to assassinate ] while Hoover was traveling through ] and ] and crossing the ] from ] by train. The plotters were arrested before the attempt was made.<ref name="LifeHH">{{Cite book |last=Jeansonne |first=Glen |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0SDIAAAAQBAJ&q=Good+will+tour |title=The Life of Herbert Hoover: Fighting Quaker, 1928-1933 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2012 |isbn=978-1-137-34673-5 |location=New York |pages=44–45 |access-date=May 20, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Museum Exhibit Galleries, Gallery 5: The Logical Candidate, The President-Elect |url=http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/Hooverstory/gallery05/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306153100/http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/Hooverstory/gallery05/ |archive-date=March 6, 2016 |access-date=February 24, 2016 |publisher=Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum |location=West Branch, Iowa}}</ref> | |||
| During the ] following the ], ] attempted to assassinate ] by gunshot while Roosevelt was giving an impromptu speech in a car in ], but instead killed ] ], who was a passenger in the car, and wounded 5 bystanders.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=31–32}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Picchi |first=Blaise |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38468505 |title=The Five Weeks of Giuseppe Zangara : The Man Who Would Assassinate FDR |date=1998 |publisher=Academy Chicago Publishers |isbn=9780897334433 |location=Chicago |oclc=38468505 |pages=19–20}}</ref> During the ] following the ], ] plotted to assassinate ] while Kennedy was vacationing in ], by detonating a dynamite-laden car where Kennedy was staying. Pavlick delayed his attempt and was arrested and ] to a mental hospital.<ref name=postman>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M9_BSXV_s_4C&dq=richard+paul+pavlick&pg=PA164|isbn=9780313364754|title=Killing the President: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief|last1=Oliver|first1=Willard|last2=Marion|first2=Nancy E.|publisher=ABC-CLIO|year=2010}}</ref><ref name=children>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nxDyGK-iLiYC&dq=richard+paul+pavlick&pg=PA48|isbn=9781581129847|title=The Fine Art of Executive Protection: Handbook for the Executive Protection Officer|last=Hunsicker|first=A.|publisher=Universal-Publishers|year=2007}}</ref><ref name=hate>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rFE7nTO-iLcC&dq=richard+paul+pavlick&pg=PA89|isbn=978-1-60819-247-2|title=Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder|last1=Russo|first1=Gus|last2=Molton |first2=Stephen|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing USA|date=2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Greene|first=Bob|title=The man who did not kill JFK|date=24 October 2010|publisher=] |url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/24/greene.jfk.arrest/}}</ref> | |||
| During the ] following the ], ] was targeted in separate security incidents by ] and ],<ref>{{cite web |title=Dirty Bomb parts found in Slain man's home|date=February 10, 2009 |url=http://bangordailynews.com/2009/02/10/politics/report-dirty-bomb-parts-found-in-slain-mans-home/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Jeff Zeleny |last2=Jim Rutenberg |date=December 5, 2009 |title=Threats Against Obama Spiked Early |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/us/06threat.html |url-access=subscription}}</ref> after an ] during the ] and an ] during the election were prevented.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Piazza |first1=Jo |last2=Meek |first2=James Gordon |last3=Kennedy |first3=Helen |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/27/2008-08-27_feds_trio_of_wouldbe_obama_assassins_not.html |title=Feds: Trio of would-be Obama assassins not much of "threat" |work=] |date=August 27, 2008 |access-date=September 1, 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABC1027">{{cite news |last=Date |first=Jack |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Vote2008/story?id=6122962&page=1 |title=Feds thwart alleged Obama assassination plot. |work=] |date=October 27, 2008 |access-date=October 28, 2008}}</ref> | |||
| During the ] following the ], as a result of former president ]'s false insistence that he had won the election, the ] did not declare Biden the winner until November 23.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Herb |first=Kristen Holmes,Jeremy |date=2020-11-23 |title=First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/transition-biden-gsa-begin/index.html |access-date=2024-07-29 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> The subsequent ] on January 6 caused delays in the ] to certify Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election, but was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the count from occurring.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Winsor |first1=Morgan |last2=Pereira |first2=Ivan |last3=Mansell |first3=William |date=January 7, 2021 |title=4 dead after US Capitol breached by pro-Trump mob during 'failed insurrection' |website=] |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/capitol-breached-protesters/story?id=75081629 }}</ref> | |||
| Ratified in 1933, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment requires that if a ] dies before ], that the ] becomes the president.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=5–6}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=564}} Akhil Amar has noted that the explicit text of the 20th Amendment does not specify when the candidates of the winning presidential ticket officially become the president-elect and vice president-elect, and that the text of Article II, Section I and the 12th Amendment suggests that candidates for president and vice president are only formally elected upon the Electoral College vote count.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Amar|first=Akhil Reed|year=1995|title=Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Death: Closing the Constitution's Succession Gap|journal=Arkansas Law Review|publisher=University of Arkansas School of Law|volume=48|pages=215–221|url=https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/5398/Presidents__Vice_Presidents__and_Death____Closing_the_Constitution_s_Succession_Gap.pdf|access-date=July 3, 2023}}</ref> Conversely, a 2020 report issued by the ] (CRS), stated that the balance of scholarly opinion has concluded that the winning presidential ticket is formally elected as soon as the majority of the electoral votes they receive are cast, according to the 1932 House committee report on the 20th Amendment.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=5–6}} | |||
| If a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs before Election Day—as in ] when ] ] died less than a week before the election and was replaced by ] at the Electoral College meetings, and in ] when ] ] withdrew his nomination less than three weeks after the ] and was replaced by ]—the internal rules of the political parties apply for filling vacancies.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=2–3}} If a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings, the 2020 CRS report notes that most legal commentators have suggested that political parties would still follow their internal rules for filling the vacancies.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=3–4}} However, in 1872, the ] did not meet to name a replacement for Horace Greeley,{{sfn|Neale|2020b|p=4}} and the 2020 CRS report notes that presidential electors may argue that they are permitted to vote faithlessly if a vacancy occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings since they were pledged to vote for a specific candidate.{{sfn|Neale|2020b|pp=3–4}} | |||
| Under the ], Congress is delegated the power to "by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=551}}{{efn|Section 1 of the ] superseded the text of the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I that stated "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President". Instead, Section 1 of the 25th Amendment provides that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." Section 2 of the 25th Amendment authorizes the president to nominate a vice president in the event of a vacancy subject to confirmation by both houses of Congress.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=6–7}}{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=567}}}}{{efn|In 1841, the death of ] as president caused debate in Congress about whether ] had formally succeeded to the Presidency or whether he was an acting president. Tyler took the ] and Congress implicitly ratified Tyler's decision in documents published subsequent to his ascension that referred to him as "the President of the United States". Tyler's ascension set the precedent that the vice president becomes the president in the event of a vacancy until the ratification of the 25th Amendment.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=3–4}}}} Pursuant to the Presidential Succession Clause, the ] passed the ] that required a ] by the Electoral College in the case of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=25–26}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=3}} Despite vacancies in the Vice Presidency from 1792 to 1886,{{efn|For nearly one-fourth of the period of time from 1792 to 1886, the Vice Presidency was vacant due to the ] and ] in 1865 and 1881 respectively, the ] William Henry Harrison and ] in 1841 and 1850 respectively, the deaths of vice presidents ], ], ], ], and ] in 1812, 1814, 1853, 1875, and 1885 respectively, and the resignation of the vice presidency by ] in 1832.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=66–67}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=25–26}}}} the special election requirement would be repealed with the rest of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 by the ] in passing the ].{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=26–30}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|p=4}} | |||
| In a special message to the ] calling for revisions to the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, President ] proposed restoring special elections for dual vacancies in the Presidency and Vice Presidency. While most of Truman's proposal was included in the final version of the ], the restoration of special elections for dual vacancies was not.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=32–33; 64–65}}{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=4–6}} Along with six other recommendations related to presidential succession,{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=45–49}} the ] recommended restoring special elections for president in the event of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency due to a catastrophic ] or ], in part because all members of the ] live and work in Washington, D.C.{{sfn|Continuity of Government Commission|2009|pp=39; 47}} | |||
| Under the 12th Amendment, presidential electors are still required to meet and cast their ballots for president and vice president within their respective states.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=560}} The CRS noted in a separate 2020 report that members of the presidential line of succession, after the vice president, only become an acting president under the Presidential Succession Clause and Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, rather than fully succeeding to the presidency.{{sfn|Neale|2020a|pp=1–7}} | |||
| === Current electoral vote distribution === | === Current electoral vote distribution === | ||
| {| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
| |+ Electoral votes (EV) allocations for the |
|+ Electoral votes (EV) allocations for the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections.<ref name="2020census01">{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/dec/2020-apportionment-data.html|title=2020 Census Apportionment Results|date=April 26, 2021|publisher=U.S. Census Bureau|location=Washington, D.C.|access-date=April 26, 2021}} Each state's number of electoral votes is equal to its total congressional representation (its number of Representatives plus its two Senators).</ref><br />Triangular markers {{nowrap|(<sup>{{increase}}{{decrease}}</sup>)}} indicate gains or losses following the 2020 census.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/electoral-college-census-2020-government-and-politics-politics-86e1a31aeeea02004a3c71abd58097ee|title=Winners and losers from first release of 2020 census data|website=Associated Press|date=April 26, 2021}}</ref> | ||
| ! EV × States !! States<sup>*</sup> | ! EV × States !! States<sup>*</sup> | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | ''' |
| align=right | '''54''' × 1 = 54 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{decrease}}</sup>California}} | ||
| |- | |||
| | align=right | '''40''' × 1 = 40 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{increase}}{{increase}}</sup>Texas}} | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | ''' |
| align=right | '''30''' × 1 = 30 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{increase}}</sup>Florida}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | ''' |
| align=right | '''28''' × 1 = 28 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{decrease}}</sup>New York}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | ''' |
| align=right | '''19''' × 2 = 38 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{decrease}}</sup>Illinois,}} {{nowrap|<sup>{{decrease}}</sup>Pennsylvania}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | ''' |
| align=right | '''17''' × 1 = 17 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{decrease}}</sup>Ohio}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''16''' × 2 = 32 || |
| align=right | '''16''' × 2 = 32 || Georgia, {{nowrap|<sup>{{increase}}</sup>North Carolina}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''15''' × 1 = 15 || |
| align=right | '''15''' × 1 = 15 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{decrease}}</sup>Michigan}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''14''' × 1 = 14 || |
| align=right | '''14''' × 1 = 14 || New Jersey | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''13''' × 1 = 13 || Virginia | | align=right | '''13''' × 1 = 13 || Virginia | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''12''' × 1 = 12 || |
| align=right | '''12''' × 1 = 12 || Washington | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''11''' × 4 = 44 || |
| align=right | '''11''' × 4 = 44 || Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''10''' × |
| align=right | '''10''' × 5 = 50 || {{nowrap|<sup>{{increase}}</sup>Colorado,}} Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''9''' × |
| align=right | '''9''' × 2 = 18 || Alabama, South Carolina | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''8''' × |
| align=right | '''8''' × 3 = 24 || Kentucky, Louisiana, {{nowrap|<sup>{{increase}}</sup>Oregon}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''7''' × |
| align=right | '''7''' × 2 = 14 || Connecticut, Oklahoma | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''6''' × 6 = 36 || Arkansas, |
| align=right | '''6''' × 6 = 36 || Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''5''' × |
| align=right | '''5''' × 2 = 10 || Nebraska**, New Mexico | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''4''' × |
| align=right | '''4''' × 7 = 28 || Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, {{nowrap|<sup>{{increase}}</sup>Montana,}} New Hampshire, Rhode Island, {{nowrap|<sup>{{decrease}}</sup>West Virginia}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | '''3''' × |
| align=right | '''3''' × 7 = 21 || Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | align=right | = 538 || Total electors | | align=right | = 538 || Total electors | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| : * ''The ] grants {{abbr| |
: * ''The ] grants {{abbr|D.C.|District of Columbia}} the same number of electors as the least populous state. This has always been three.'' | ||
| : ** ''Maine's four electors and Nebraska's five are distributed using the ].'' | : ** ''Maine's four electors and Nebraska's five are distributed using the ].'' | ||
| Line 312: | Line 402: | ||
| ! colspan=18 | 1804–1900 | ! colspan=18 | 1804–1900 | ||
| ! colspan=11 | 1904–2000 | ! colspan=11 | 1904–2000 | ||
| ! colspan= |
! colspan=3 | 2004– | ||
| |- valign=bottom | |- valign=bottom | ||
| ! ] | ! ] | ||
| Line 360: | Line 450: | ||
| ! ]<br />] | ! ]<br />] | ||
| ! ]<br />]<br />] | ! ]<br />]<br />] | ||
| ! ]<br />] | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! # !! style="text-align:right" |Total | ! # !! style="text-align:right" |Total | ||
| Line 376: | Line 467: | ||
| ! 296 | ! 296 | ||
| ! 303 | ! 303 | ||
| ! 234 | ! 234<br>''251'' | ||
| ! 294 | ! 294 | ||
| ! 366 | ! 366 | ||
| Line 387: | Line 478: | ||
| ! colspan=4 | 531 | ! colspan=4 | 531 | ||
| ! 537 | ! 537 | ||
| ! colspan= |
! colspan=7 | 538 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! !! style="text-align:left" | State !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! | ! !! style="text-align:left" | State !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! 22 !! ] | ! 22 !! ] | ||
| Line 415: | Line 506: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 12 | | '''12''' | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| Line 421: | Line 512: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 9 | |||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| Line 456: | Line 548: | ||
| | {{not polled}} | | | {{not polled}} | | ||
| | {{not polled}} | | | {{not polled}} | | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | '''3''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 499: | Line 592: | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | '''11''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 524: | Line 618: | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 6 | |||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| Line 572: | Line 667: | ||
| | 47 | | 47 | ||
| | 54 | | 54 | ||
| | 55 | | '''55''' | ||
| | 55 | | '''55''' | ||
| | 54 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 611: | Line 707: | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | '''10''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! 5 !! ] | ! 5 !! ] | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 9 | | '''9''' | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| Line 646: | Line 743: | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 7 | |||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| Line 679: | Line 777: | ||
| | {{not polled}} | | | {{not polled}} | | ||
| | {{not polled}} | | | {{not polled}} | | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | '''3''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 692: | Line 791: | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| Line 703: | Line 802: | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | {{sort|03|3}} <!-- See 1864–68 note above --> | | {{sort|03|3}} <!-- See 1864–68 note above --> | ||
| | 3 | |||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| Line 759: | Line 859: | ||
| | 27 | | 27 | ||
| | 29 | | 29 | ||
| | '''30''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 795: | Line 896: | ||
| | 13 | | 13 | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| | 16 | | '''16''' | ||
| | '''16''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 827: | Line 929: | ||
| | {{not polled}} | | | {{not polled}} | | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | '''4''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 859: | Line 962: | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | '''4''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 896: | Line 1,000: | ||
| | 27 | | 27 | ||
| | 27 | | 27 | ||
| | 29 | | '''29''' | ||
| | 29 | | '''29''' | ||
| | 28 | | 28 | ||
| | 27 | | 27 | ||
| Line 907: | Line 1,011: | ||
| | 21 | | 21 | ||
| | 20 | | 20 | ||
| | 19 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 926: | Line 1,031: | ||
| | 13 <!-- See 1864–68 note above --> | | 13 <!-- See 1864–68 note above --> | ||
| | 13 | | 13 | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 14 | | 14 | ||
| | 13 | | 13 | ||
| Line 942: | Line 1,047: | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 11 | |||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| Line 965: | Line 1,071: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| Line 980: | Line 1,086: | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 6 | |||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| Line 1,003: | Line 1,110: | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| Line 1,015: | Line 1,122: | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 6 | |||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| Line 1,029: | Line 1,137: | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 14 | | 14 | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| Line 1,052: | Line 1,160: | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 8 | |||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| Line 1,072: | Line 1,181: | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | style="background:#cccccc" |{{sort| |
| style="background:#cccccc" | {{sort|07|''7''}} | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| Line 1,081: | Line 1,190: | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 8 | |||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| Line 1,103: | Line 1,213: | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| Line 1,123: | Line 1,233: | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 4 | |||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| Line 1,135: | Line 1,246: | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| Line 1,160: | Line 1,271: | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 10 | |||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| Line 1,173: | Line 1,285: | ||
| | 16 | | 16 | ||
| | 19 | | 19 | ||
| | 22 | | '''22''' | ||
| | 22 | | '''22''' | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| Line 1,202: | Line 1,314: | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 11 | |||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| Line 1,234: | Line 1,347: | ||
| | 20 | | 20 | ||
| | 20 | | 20 | ||
| | 21 | | '''21''' | ||
| | 21 | | '''21''' | ||
| | 20 | | 20 | ||
| | 18 | | 18 | ||
| | 17 | | 17 | ||
| | 16 | | 16 | ||
| | 15 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,266: | Line 1,380: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 12 | | '''12''' | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 10 | |||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| Line 1,301: | Line 1,416: | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 10 | | '''10''' | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| Line 1,312: | Line 1,427: | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 6 | |||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| Line 1,338: | Line 1,454: | ||
| | 17 | | 17 | ||
| | 17 | | 17 | ||
| | 18 | | '''18''' | ||
| | 18 | | '''18''' | ||
| | 18 | | '''18''' | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| Line 1,350: | Line 1,466: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 10 | |||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| Line 1,377: | Line 1,494: | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 4 | | '''4''' | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | '''4''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,410: | Line 1,528: | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 5 | |||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| Line 1,461: | Line 1,580: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 6 | | '''6''' | ||
| | '''6''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,469: | Line 1,589: | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| Line 1,483: | Line 1,603: | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 4 | |||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| Line 1,530: | Line 1,651: | ||
| | 16 | | 16 | ||
| | 16 | | 16 | ||
| | 17 | | '''17''' | ||
| | 17 | | '''17''' | ||
| | 16 | | 16 | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| | 14 | |||
| | 14 | | 14 | ||
| Line 1,569: | Line 1,691: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 5 | | '''5''' | ||
| | 5 | | '''5''' | ||
| | 5 | | '''5''' | ||
| | 5 | | '''5''' | ||
| | '''5''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,600: | Line 1,723: | ||
| | 39 | | 39 | ||
| | 45 | | 45 | ||
| | 47 | | '''47''' | ||
| | 47 | | '''47''' | ||
| | 45 | | 45 | ||
| | 45 | | 45 | ||
| Line 1,610: | Line 1,733: | ||
| | 31 | | 31 | ||
| | 29 | | 29 | ||
| | 28 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,647: | Line 1,771: | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| | 15 | | 15 | ||
| | '''16''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,673: | Line 1,798: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 5 | | '''5''' | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| Line 1,679: | Line 1,804: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 3 | |||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| Line 1,711: | Line 1,837: | ||
| | 23 | | 23 | ||
| | 24 | | 24 | ||
| | 26 | | '''26''' | ||
| | 25 | | 25 | ||
| | 25 | | 25 | ||
| | 25 | | 25 | ||
| | 26 | | '''26''' | ||
| | 25 | | 25 | ||
| | 23 | | 23 | ||
| Line 1,721: | Line 1,847: | ||
| | 20 | | 20 | ||
| | 18 | | 18 | ||
| | 17 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,748: | Line 1,875: | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| Line 1,756: | Line 1,883: | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 7 | |||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| Line 1,795: | Line 1,923: | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | '''8''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,821: | Line 1,950: | ||
| | 34 | | 34 | ||
| | 34 | | 34 | ||
| | 38 | | '''38''' | ||
| | 36 | | 36 | ||
| | 35 | | 35 | ||
| Line 1,832: | Line 1,961: | ||
| | 21 | | 21 | ||
| | 20 | | 20 | ||
| | 19 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 1,858: | Line 1,988: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 5 | | '''5''' | ||
| | 4 | |||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| Line 1,876: | Line 2,007: | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 11 | | '''11''' | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| Line 1,905: | Line 2,036: | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 9 | |||
| | 9 | | 9 | ||
| Line 1,932: | Line 2,064: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 5 | | '''5''' | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| Line 1,939: | Line 2,071: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 3 | |||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| Line 1,954: | Line 2,087: | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 15 | | '''15''' | ||
| | 13 | | 13 | ||
| | 13 | | 13 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | style="background:#cccccc" | |
| style="background:#cccccc" | ''10'' | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| Line 1,976: | Line 2,109: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 11 | |||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| Line 2,017: | Line 2,151: | ||
| | 34 | | 34 | ||
| | 38 | | 38 | ||
| | '''40''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 2,053: | Line 2,188: | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 6 | | '''6''' | ||
| | '''6''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 2,062: | Line 2,198: | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| | 8 | | 8 | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| Line 2,081: | Line 2,217: | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 4 | | 4 | ||
| | 3 | |||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| | 3 | | 3 | ||
| Line 2,098: | Line 2,235: | ||
| | 21 | | 21 | ||
| | 24 | | 24 | ||
| | 25 | | '''25''' | ||
| | 25 | | '''25''' | ||
| | 25 | | '''25''' | ||
| | 24 | | 24 | ||
| | 23 | | 23 | ||
| Line 2,125: | Line 2,262: | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 13 | |||
| | 13 | | 13 | ||
| | 13 | | 13 | ||
| Line 2,164: | Line 2,302: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 12 | | '''12''' | ||
| | '''12''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 2,191: | Line 2,330: | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 8 | | '''8''' | ||
| | 7 | | 7 | ||
| | 6 | | 6 | ||
| Line 2,202: | Line 2,341: | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 5 | | 5 | ||
| | 4 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 2,226: | Line 2,366: | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 13 | | '''13''' | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| | 12 | | 12 | ||
| Line 2,237: | Line 2,377: | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 11 | | 11 | ||
| | 10 | |||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| | 10 | | 10 | ||
| Line 2,261: | Line 2,402: | ||
| | {{not polled}} | | | {{not polled}} | | ||
| | {{not polled}} | | | {{not polled}} | | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | 3 | | '''3''' | ||
| | '''3''' | |||
| |- class="sortbottom" | |- class="sortbottom" | ||
| Line 2,293: | Line 2,435: | ||
| ! 296 | ! 296 | ||
| ! 303 | ! 303 | ||
| ! 234 | ! 234<br>''251'' | ||
| ! 294 | ! 294 | ||
| ! 366 | ! 366 | ||
| Line 2,304: | Line 2,446: | ||
| ! colspan=4 | 531 | ! colspan=4 | 531 | ||
| ! 537 | ! 537 | ||
| ! colspan= |
! colspan=7 | 538 | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| Source: at <br> | Source: at <br /> | ||
| Note: In 1788, 1792, 1796, and 1800, each elector ]. | Note: In 1788, 1792, 1796, and 1800, each elector ]. | ||
| ] shows the number of electors from each state for the |
] shows the number of electors from each state for the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections. Following the ], 7 states ] one electoral vote,{{Efn|California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia|name=|group=}} 5 states gained one,{{Efn|Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon|name=|group=}} and Texas gained two.]] | ||
| == Alternative methods of choosing electors == | == Alternative methods of choosing electors == | ||
| {{stack begin}} | {{stack begin}} | ||
| {| class=wikitable style="text-align:center; font-size:80%;" | {| class=wikitable style="text-align:center; font-size:80%;" | ||
| |+ Methods of presidential elector selection, by state, 1789–1832<ref>{{Cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|pages=254–56}}</ref> | |+ Methods of presidential elector selection, by state, 1789–1832.<ref>{{Cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|pages=254–56}}</ref> | ||
| ! Year | ! Year | ||
| ! !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] | ! !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] | ||
| Line 2,397: | Line 2,539: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{stack end}} | {{stack end}} | ||
| Before the advent of the "short ballot" in the early 20th century (as described in ]) 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 |
Before the advent of the "short ballot" in the early 20th century (as described in ]) 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. 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 ] or ]. The short ballot was adopted by the various states at different times. It was adopted for use by ] and ] in 1932. ] was still using the general ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot. | |||
| The question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature's choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In '']'', {{ussc|146|1|1892}}, the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause{{nbsp}}2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote these words "operat as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power". | |||
| In ''Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board'', {{ussc|531|70|2000}}, a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on ''McPherson''. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in '']'', {{ussc|531|98|2000}}, wrote: "othing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it."<ref> (quote in second paragraph).</ref> | |||
| The question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature's choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In '']'', {{ussc|146|1|1892}}, the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause{{nbsp}}2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote these words "operat as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power". In ''Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board'', {{ussc|531|70|2000}}, a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on ''McPherson''. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in '']'', {{ussc|531|98|2000}}, wrote: "othing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it."<ref> (quote in second paragraph)</ref> Extensive research on alternate methods of electoral allocation have been conducted by Collin Welke, Dylan Shearer, and Riley Wagie in 2019. | |||
| === Appointment by state legislature === | === Appointment by state legislature === | ||
| In the earliest presidential elections, state legislative choice was the most common method of choosing electors. A majority of the state legislatures selected presidential electors in both 1792 (9 of 15) and 1800 (10 of 16), and half of them did so in 1812.<ref>{{cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|page=255}}</ref> Even in ], a quarter of state legislatures (6 of 24) chose electors. |
In the earliest presidential elections, state legislative choice was the most common method of choosing electors. A majority of the state legislatures selected presidential electors in both 1792 (9 of 15) and 1800 (10 of 16), and half of them did so in 1812.<ref>{{cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|page=255}}</ref> Even in the ], a quarter of state legislatures (6 of 24) chose electors. In that election, ] lost in spite of having a plurality of both the popular vote and the number of electoral votes representing them.<ref name="CongPres">{{cite journal|last1=Kolodny|first1=Robin|year=1996|title=The Several Elections of 1824|journal=Congress & the Presidency|volume=23|issue=2|pages=139–64|doi=10.1080/07343469609507834 |issn = 0734-3469 }}</ref> Yet, as six states did not hold a popular election for their electoral votes, the full expression of the popular vote nationally cannot be known.<ref name="CongPres"/> | ||
| Some state legislatures simply chose electors. Other states used a hybrid method in which state legislatures chose from a group of electors elected by popular vote.<ref name="Kazin">{{cite web|title=Election 101|url=http://blog.press.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2By-the-Numbers.Electoral-College.pdf|website=Princeton Press|publisher=Princeton University Press|access-date=November 22, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141202070158/http://blog.press.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2By-the-Numbers.Electoral-College.pdf|archive-date=December 2, 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref> By 1828, with the rise of ], only ] and ] used legislative choice.<ref name="CongPres" /> Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832). South Carolina continued using the method until it seceded from the Union in December 1860.<ref name="CongPres"/> South Carolina used the popular vote for the first time in the ].<ref name="EBlack">{{cite news|last1=Black|first1=Eric|title=Our Electoral College system is weird – and not in a good way|url=http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/our-electoral-college-system-weird-and-not-good-way|access-date=November 22, 2014|newspaper=MinnPost|date=October 14, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| Excluding South Carolina, legislative appointment was used in only four situations after 1832: | Excluding South Carolina, legislative appointment was used in only four situations after 1832: | ||
| * In 1848, ] statute awarded the state's electoral votes to the winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner between the ], ], and ] parties, the state legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to the Whigs.<ref name="CongQrt">{{Cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|page=266}}</ref> | * In 1848, ] statute awarded the state's electoral votes to the winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner between the ], ], and ] parties, the state legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to the Whigs, which had won the plurality of votes in the state.<ref name="CongQrt">{{Cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|page=266}}</ref> | ||
| * In 1864, ], having joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no choice but to legislatively appoint.<ref name="CongQrt" /> | * In 1864, ], having joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no choice but to legislatively appoint.<ref name="CongQrt" /> | ||
| * In 1868, the newly reconstructed state of ] legislatively appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections.<ref name="CongQrt" /> | * In 1868, the newly reconstructed state of ] legislatively appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections.<ref name="CongQrt" /> | ||
| * |
* In 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of ] used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold a popular election.<ref name="CongQrt" /> | ||
| Legislative appointment was brandished as a possibility in the ]. Had the recount continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal safe-harbor deadline for choosing electors.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/session_11-30.html| |
Legislative appointment was brandished as a possibility in the ]. Had the recount continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal safe-harbor deadline for choosing electors.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/session_11-30.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010124044300/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/session_11-30.html|archive-date=2001-01-24|title=Legislative Action?, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, November 30, 2000|publisher=Pbs.org|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref> | ||
| The Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state's electors are chosen<ref name="CongPres" /> and it can be 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 can have negative consequences: ] legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. This is precisely what happened to New York in 1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.<ref>{{Cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|page=254}}</ref> |
The Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state's electors are chosen<ref name="CongPres" /> and it can be 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 can have negative consequences: ] legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. This is precisely what happened to New York in 1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.<ref>{{Cite book|editor-last=Moore|editor-first=John L.|title=Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections|edition=2nd|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|place=Washington, D.C.|year=1985|page=254}}</ref> | ||
| === Electoral districts === | === Electoral districts === | ||
| Another method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state into ]s. By this method, voters in each district would cast their ballots for the electors they supported and the winner in each district would become the elector. This was similar to how states are currently separated into congressional districts. |
Another method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state into ]s. By this method, voters in each district would cast their ballots for the electors they supported and the winner in each district would become the elector. This was similar to how states are currently separated into congressional districts. The difference stems from the fact that every state always had two more electoral districts than congressional districts. As with congressional districts, this method is vulnerable to ]. | ||
| === Congressional district method === | === Congressional district method === | ||
| ] using one of the Congressional district methods]] | |||
| There are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another, in Virginia, has only been proposed. Under the implemented means, one electoral vote goes per the plurality of the popular votes of each ] (for the ]); and two per the statewide popular vote. This may result in greater proportionality. It has often acted as the other states, as in 1992, when ] won all five of Nebraska's electoral votes with a clear plurality on 47% of the vote; in a truly proportional system, he would have received three and ] and ] each would have received one.<ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite web|url=http://www.fandm.edu/x6441.xml|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060903145758/http://www1.fandm.edu/x6441.xml|archivedate=September 3, 2006|title=Fiddling with the Rules|website=Franklin & Marshall College|date=March 9, 2005|accessdate=August 26, 2010}}</ref> | |||
| There are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another was used in New York in 1828 and proposed for use in Virginia. Under the implemented method, electors are awarded the way seats in Congress are awarded. One electoral vote goes per the plurality of the popular votes of each ] (for the ]), and two per the statewide popular vote. This may result in greater proportionality. But it can give results similar to the winner-takes-all states, as in 1992, when ] won all five of Nebraska's electoral votes with a clear plurality on 47% of the vote; in a truly proportional system, he would have received three and ] and ] each would have received one.<ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite web|url=http://www.fandm.edu/x6441.xml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060903145758/http://www1.fandm.edu/x6441.xml|archive-date=September 3, 2006|title=Fiddling with the Rules|website=Franklin & Marshall College|date=March 9, 2005|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref> | |||
| In 2013, the Virginia proposal was tabled. Like the other congressional district methods, this would have distributed the electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia's 11 congressional districts; |
In 2013, the Virginia proposal was tabled. Like the other congressional district methods, this would have distributed the electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia's 11 congressional districts; the two statewide electoral votes would be awarded based on which candidate won the most congressional districts.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/01/24/430096e6-6654-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html|title=Republicans in Virginia, other states seeking electoral college changes|newspaper=washingtonpost.com|access-date=January 24, 2013|first1=Nia-Malika|last1=Henderson|first2=Errin|last2=Haines|date=January 25, 2013}}</ref> A similar method was used in New York in 1828: the two at large electors were elected by the electors selected in districts. | ||
| A congressional district method is more likely to arise than other alternatives to the winner-takes-whole-state method, in view of the main two parties resistance to scrap first-past-the-post. State legislation is sufficient to use this method.<ref name="autogenerated5">{{cite web|url=http://www.dos.state.pa.us/election_reform/lib/election_reform/Electoral_College_Reform.pdf| |
A congressional district method is more likely to arise than other alternatives to the winner-takes-whole-state method, in view of the main two parties' resistance to scrap first-past-the-post. State legislation is sufficient to use this method.<ref name="autogenerated5">{{cite web|url=http://www.dos.state.pa.us/election_reform/lib/election_reform/Electoral_College_Reform.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501035031/http://www.dos.state.pa.us/election_reform/lib/election_reform/Electoral_College_Reform.pdf|archive-date=2008-05-01|title=Election Reform|publisher=Dos.state.pa.us|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Advocates of the method believe the system encourages higher ] or incentivizes candidates, to visit and appeal to some states deemed ], overall, for one party.<ref>{{cite news |last1=McNulty |first1=Timothy |date=December 23, 2012 |title=Pennsylvania looks to alter state's electoral vote system |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2012/12/23/Pennsylvania-looks-to-alter-state-s-electoral-vote-system/stories/201212230184 |newspaper=]}}</ref> | ||
| Winner-take-all systems ignore thousands of votes. In Democratic California there are Republican districts, in Republican Texas there are Democratic districts. Because candidates have an incentive to campaign in competitive districts, with a district plan, candidates have an incentive to actively campaign in over thirty states versus about seven "swing" states.<ref>Sabato, Larry. "{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}" viewed November 22, 2014. (archived from {{dead link|date=May 2017|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} on 2016-01-02).</ref><ref>Levy, Robert A., Cato Institute, viewed November 22, 2014.</ref> Opponents of the system argue that candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state and cases of gerrymandering could become exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe districts as they can.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#district|title=The Electoral College – Reform Options|publisher=Fairvote.org|access-date=August 14, 2014|archive-date=February 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150221122053/http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#district|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
| Unlike simple congressional district comparisons, the district plan popular vote bonus in the 2008 election would have given Obama 56% of the Electoral College versus the 68% he did win; it "would have more closely approximated the percentage of the popular vote won ".<ref>Congressional Research Services , p. 15, viewed November 22, 2014.</ref> | |||
| Unlike simple congressional district comparisons, the district plan popular vote bonus in the 2008 election would have given Obama 56% of the Electoral College versus the 68% he did win; it "would have more closely approximated the percentage of the popular vote won ".<ref>Congressional Research Services , p. 15, viewed November 22, 2014.</ref> However, the district plan would have given Obama 49% of the Electoral College in 2012, and would have given Romney a win in the Electoral College even though Obama won the popular vote by nearly 4% (51.1–47.2) over Romney.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Gaming the Electoral College: Alternate Allocation Methods |url=https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2012 |access-date=2022-07-31 |website=www.270towin.com |language=en |archive-date=January 16, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220116223111/https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
| ==== Implementation ==== | ==== Implementation ==== | ||
| Of the |
Of the 44 multi-district states whose 517 electoral votes are amenable to the method, only ] (4 EV) and ] (5 EV) apply it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation|title=Distribution of Electoral Votes|work=National Archives|date=September 19, 2019 |access-date=November 1, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/es/news/news-articles/nebraska-and-maine-split-their-electoral-vote-is-it-a-better-system-than-winner-take-all/|title=Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote. Is it a better system than winner-take-all?|first=Elizabeth|last=Rembert|work=Nebraska Public Media|date=April 3, 2024}}</ref> Maine began using the congressional district method in the ]. Nebraska has used the congressional district method since the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/methods.php|title=Methods of Choosing Presidential Electors|publisher=Uselectionatlas.org|access-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Nebraska's Vote Change|date=April 7, 1991|newspaper=The Washington Post|first=Maralee|last=Schwartz|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/04/07/nebraskas-vote-change/4ef16f69-1158-4e39-9556-4e65a666d735/}}</ref> Michigan used the system for the ],<ref name="autogenerated3" /><ref name="Skelley">{{cite news|last1=Skelley|first1=Geoffrey|title=What Goes Around Comes Around?|url=http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/what-goes-around-comes-around/|access-date=November 22, 2014|publisher=Sabato's Crystal Ball|date=November 20, 2014}}</ref><ref name="Lansing">{{cite news|last1=Egan|first1=Paul|title=Michigan split its electoral votes in 1892 election|url=http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/capitol/2014/11/21/michigan-split-electoral-votes-election/19367405/|access-date=November 22, 2014|publisher=Lansing State Journal|date=November 21, 2014}}</ref> and several other states used various forms of the district plan before 1840: Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and New York.<ref>Congressional Quarterly Books, "Presidential Elections: 1789–1996", {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, p. 10.</ref> | ||
| The congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, |
The congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, Nebraska had never split its electoral votes, while Maine had only done so once under its previous district plan in ].<ref name="autogenerated3" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/why-nebraska-maine-congressional-district-method-could-crucial/6073983002/|title=Nebraska and Maine's district voting method could be crucial in this election. Here's why.|date=November 4, 2020|first=Savannah|last=Behrmann|work=USA Today}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.governing.com/archive/tns-maine-electors-trump-clinton.html|title=In a First Since 1828, Maine Electors Split Their Vote|work=Governing|first=Caroline|last=Cournoyer|date=December 20, 2016}}</ref> Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of ], centered on the state's largest city, ].<ref>{{cite web|author=Tysver, Robynn|title=Obama wins electoral vote in Nebraska|publisher=Omaha World Herald|date=November 7, 2008|url=http://spiffie.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/07/2087147-obama-wins-electoral-vote-in-nebraska|access-date=November 7, 2008}}</ref> Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the congressional district method and return to the winner-takes-all system.<ref name="foxne">{{cite web|author=Molai, Nabil|title=Republicans Push to Change Electoral Vote System|publisher=KPTM Fox 42|date=October 28, 2008|url=http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9255487&nav=menu606_2|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120516093223/http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9255487&nav=menu606_2|archive-date=May 16, 2012|access-date=November 4, 2008}}</ref> In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system;<ref name="billne">{{cite news|first=Jean|last=Ortiz|title=Bill targets Neb. ability to split electoral votes|agency=Associated Press|date=January 7, 2010|url=http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_b05a487c-fbae-11de-b9c2-001cc4c002e0.html|access-date=September 8, 2011}}</ref> the bill died in committee in March 2011.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.boldnebraska.org/mccoy_fail|title=Fail: Sen. McCoy's Partisan Electoral College Bill|first=Jane|last=Kleeb|date=March 10, 2011|publisher=Bold Nebraska|access-date=August 9, 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120531013226/http://www.boldnebraska.org/mccoy_fail|archive-date=May 31, 2012}}</ref> Republicans had passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to do the same, which were ] by Democratic Governor ].<ref name="foxne" /> | ||
| More recently, Maine split its electoral votes for the first time under the congressional district method in 2016. Hillary Clinton won its two statewide electors and its ], which covers the state's southwestern coastal region and its largest city of ], while Donald Trump won the electoral vote of ], which takes in the remainder of the state and is much larger by area. In the 2020 election, both Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes, following the same pattern of congressional district differences that were seen in 2008 and 2016 respectively: Nebraska's 2nd congressional district voted for Democrat Joe Biden while the remainder of the state voted for Republican Donald Trump; and Maine's 2nd congressional district voted for Trump while the remainder of the state voted for Biden.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/|title=Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska|work=]|access-date=November 1, 2024}}</ref> | |||
| ;Recent abandoned adoption in other states | |||
| In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so some saw this as an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Although Democrat ] won Pennsylvania in ], he won 55% of its popular vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/pennsylvania-republicans-weigh-electoral-vote-changes.html|title=Pennsylvania Republicans Weigh Electoral Vote Changes|first=Katharine Q.|last=Seelye|date=September 19, 2011|via=NYTimes.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/13/pennsylvania_ponders_bold_democrat_screwing_electoral_plan.html|title=Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan|first=David|last=Weigel|date=September 13, 2011|via=Slate}}</ref> The plan later lost support.<ref> (archived from on 2012-01-31)</ref> Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative ],<ref name="PLund">{{cite news|last1=Gray|first1=Kathleen|title=Bill to change Michigan's electoral vote gets hearing|url=http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/14/michigan-vote-presidential/19029459/|accessdate=22 November 2014|newspaper=Detroit Free Press|date=14 November 2014}}</ref> ] Chairman ], and Wisconsin Governor ], have floated similar ideas.<ref name="LJacobson">{{cite magazine|last1=Jacobson|first1=Louis|title=The Ramifications of Changing the Electoral College|url=http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-ramifications-changing-electoral-college.html|accessdate=22 November 2014|magazine=Governing Magazine|date=31 January 2013|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129134311/http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-ramifications-changing-electoral-college.html|archivedate=November 29, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="RWilson">{{cite magazine|last1=Wilson|first1=Reid|title=The GOP's Electoral College Scheme|url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130108131314/http://nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217|archivedate=2013-01-08|accessdate=22 November 2014|magazine=National Journal|date=17 December 2012}}</ref> | |||
| ====Recent abandoned adoption in other states==== | |||
| In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so this was seen an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Democrat ] won Pennsylvania in ] with 55% of its vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/pennsylvania-republicans-weigh-electoral-vote-changes.html|title=Pennsylvania Republicans Weigh Electoral Vote Changes|first=Katharine Q.|last=Seelye|newspaper=The New York Times|date=September 19, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/13/pennsylvania_ponders_bold_democrat_screwing_electoral_plan.html|title=Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan|first=David|last=Weigel|date=September 13, 2011|journal=Slate}}</ref> The plan later lost support.<ref> (November 21, 2011). ]. (archived from on 2012-01-31)</ref> Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative ],<ref name="PLund">{{cite news|last1=Gray|first1=Kathleen|title=Bill to change Michigan's electoral vote gets hearing|url=http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/14/michigan-vote-presidential/19029459/|access-date=November 22, 2014|newspaper=Detroit Free Press|date=November 14, 2014}}</ref> ] Chairman ], and Wisconsin Governor ], have floated similar ideas.<ref name="LJacobson">{{cite magazine|last1=Jacobson|first1=Louis|title=The Ramifications of Changing the Electoral College|url=http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-ramifications-changing-electoral-college.html|access-date=November 22, 2014|magazine=Governing Magazine|date=January 31, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129134311/http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-ramifications-changing-electoral-college.html|archive-date=November 29, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="RWilson">{{cite magazine|last1=Wilson|first1=Reid|title=The GOP's Electoral College Scheme|url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130108131314/http://nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217|archive-date=2013-01-08|access-date=November 22, 2014|magazine=National Journal|date=December 17, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| === Proportional vote === | === Proportional vote === | ||
| In a proportional system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.<ref>{{cite web|title=FairVote|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#proportional| |
In a ], electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.<ref>{{cite web|title=FairVote|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#proportional|access-date=August 14, 2014|publisher=FairVote|archive-date=February 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150221122053/http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#proportional|url-status=dead}}</ref> | ||
| == |
== Impacts and reception == | ||
| ].<ref name=Pew2024>{{cite news |last1=Kiley |first1=Jocelyn |title=Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college |work=] |date=25 September 2024}}</ref>]] | |||
| Arguments between proponents and opponents of the current electoral system include four separate but related topics: indirect election, disproportionate voting power by some states, the winner-takes-all distribution method (as chosen by 48 of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia), and federalism. Arguments against the Electoral College in common discussion focus mostly on the allocation of the voting power among the states. Gary Bugh's research of congressional debates over proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College reveals reform opponents have often appealed to a traditional republican version of representation, whereas reform advocates have tended to reference a more democratic view.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bugh|first1=Gary E.|year=2016|chapter=Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System|chapterurl={{Google books|eJ4WDAAAQBAJ|page=5|plainurl=yes}}|editor1-first=Gary|editor1-last=Bugh|title=Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities|publisher=Routledge|pages=5–18|isbn=978-1-317-14527-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/02/opinion/20081102_OPCHART.html|title=Op-Chart: How Much Is Your Vote Worth? Op-Chart|date=November 2, 2008|via=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fairvote.org/problems_with_the_electoral_college#8|title=Problems with the Electoral College – Fairvote|last=FairVote.org|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160814163925/http://www.fairvote.org/problems_with_the_electoral_college#8|archivedate=August 14, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref> | |||
| Gary Bugh's research of congressional debates over proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College reveals reform opponents have often appealed to tradition and the preference for indirect elections, whereas reform advocates often champion a more egalitarian ] system.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bugh|first1=Gary E.|year=2016|chapter=Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System|chapter-url={{Google books|eJ4WDAAAQBAJ|page=5|plainurl=yes}}|editor1-first=Gary|editor1-last=Bugh|title=Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities|publisher=Routledge|pages=5–18|isbn=978-1-317-14527-1}}</ref> Electoral colleges have been scrapped by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an ].<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last1=Ziblatt |first1=Daniel |last2=Levitsky |first2=Steven |date=September 5, 2023 |title=How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |access-date=2023-09-20 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":5" /> | |||
| Critics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than a national direct popular vote and is subject to manipulation because of ];<ref name="auto4" /><ref name="auto6" /> that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "]";<ref name="auto8" /> and there can be elections where one candidate wins the national popular vote but another wins the electoral vote, as in the ] and ]s.<ref name="auto7" /> Individual citizens in less populated states with 5% of the Electoral College have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states,<ref name="auto9">{{cite magazine |last=Speel |first=Robert |date=November 15, 2016 |title=These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are All Wrong |url=https://time.com/4571626/electoral-college-wrong-arguments/ |access-date=January 5, 2019 |magazine=] |quote="Rural states get a slight boost from the 2 electoral votes awarded to states due to their 2 Senate seats}}</ref> and candidates can win by focusing on just a few "]s".<ref name="auto5" /><ref>{{cite web |last=FairVote.org |title=Problems with the Electoral College – Fairvote |url=http://www.fairvote.org/problems_with_the_electoral_college#8 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160814163925/http://www.fairvote.org/problems_with_the_electoral_college#8 |archive-date=August 14, 2016 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> | |||
| === Criticism === | |||
| ==== Nondeterminacy of popular vote ==== | |||
| {{see also|List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote}} | |||
| ] can still lose in an ] system similar to the U.S. Electoral College.</span>]] | |||
| ] | |||
| === Polling ~40% === | |||
| The elections of ], ], ], and ] produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive at least a ] of the nationwide ].<ref name="GeorgeEdwards" /> In ], there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, so it is uncertain what the national popular vote would have been if all presidential electors had been popularly elected. When no candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the ] and so could be considered distinct from the latter four elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005582|title=Electoral College Mischief, The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2004|publisher=Opinionjournal.com|accessdate=August 26, 2010}}</ref> The true national popular vote was also uncertain in the ] election, and the plurality for the winner depends on how votes for Alabama electors are allocated.<ref name="trende">{{cite news|title=Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote?|publisher=RealClearPolitics|date=October 22, 2012|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular_vote_115833.html|accessdate=October 23, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| 21st century polling data shows that a majority of Americans consistently favor having a direct popular vote for presidential elections. The popularity of the Electoral College has hovered between 35% and 44%.<ref name=Pew2024/><ref name="PewResearch">{{cite web |last=Daniller |first=Andrew |date=March 13, 2020 |title=A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/13/a-majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-replacing-electoral-college-with-a-nationwide-popular-vote/ |access-date=November 10, 2019 |series=Fact Tank: news in the numbers |publisher=Pew Research Center}}</ref>{{efn|Americans favored a Constitutional Amendment to elect the president by a nationwide popular vote on average 61% and those for electoral college selection 35%. In 2016 polling, the gap closed to 51% direct election versus 44% electoral college. By 2020, American thinking had again diverged with 58% for direct election versus 40% for the electoral college choosing a president.<ref name=PewResearch />}} | |||
| === Difference with popular vote === | |||
| Opponents of the Electoral College claim such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle.<ref name="GeorgeEdwards" /> Outcomes of this sort are attributable to the federal nature of the system. Supporters of the Electoral College argue candidates must build a popular base that is geographically broader and more diverse in voter interests than either a simple national plurality or majority. Neither is this feature attributable to having intermediate elections of presidents, caused instead by the ] method of allocating each state's slate of electors. Allocation of electors in proportion to the state's popular vote could reduce this effect. | |||
| ] can still lose in an ] system similar to the U.S. Electoral College.]] | |||
| ] | |||
| Opponents of the Electoral College claim such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle.<ref name="GeorgeEdwards">{{Cite book |last=Edwards III |first=George C. |author-link=George C. Edwards III |url=https://openlibrary.org/works/OL16175486W/Why_the_electoral_college_is_bad_for_America?edition=key%3A/books/OL25053480M |title=Why the Electoral College is Bad for America |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-300-16649-1 |edition=Second |location=New Haven and London |pages=1, 37, 61, 176–77, 193–94}}</ref> | |||
| Proponents of a national popular vote point out that the combined population of the 50 biggest cities (not including ]) amounts to only 15% of the population.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://archive.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=5|title=National Popular Vote – Electoral college reform by direct election of the President|last=Hernandez|first=Carlos Felipe|website=archive.nationalpopularvote.com|access-date=2016-09-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018074322/http://archive.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=5|archive-date=October 18, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> They also assert that candidates in popular vote elections for governor and U.S. Senate, and for statewide allocation of electoral votes, do not ignore voters in less populated areas.<ref> by National Popular Vote (archived from on 2009-08-05)</ref>{{better source|date=October 2018}} In addition, it is already possible to win the required 270 electoral votes by winning only the 11 most populous states; what currently prevents such a result is the organic political diversity between those states (three reliably Republican states, four swing states, and four reliably Democratic states), not any inherent quality of the Electoral College itself.<ref>{{Citation|last=CGP Grey|title=Re: The Trouble With The Electoral College – Cities, Metro Areas, Elections and The United States|date=2016-11-11|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM&t=1m27s|accessdate=2017-02-11}}</ref> | |||
| While many assume the national popular vote observed under the Electoral College system would reflect the popular vote observed under a National Popular Vote system, supporters contend that is not necessarily the case as each electoral institution produces different incentives for, and strategy choices by, presidential campaigns.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/09/your-candidate-got-more-of-the-popular-vote-irrelevant/|title=Your candidate got more of the popular vote? Irrelevant.|author=Jonathan H. Adler|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=November 10, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-popular-vote-is-a-meaningless-statistic/article/2607098|title=Why the popular vote is a meaningless statistic|author=Ashe Schow|magazine=The Washington Examiner|access-date=November 10, 2016}}</ref> | |||
| ==== Notable elections ==== | |||
| {{see also|List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote}} | |||
| The elections of ], ], ], and ] produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive at least a ] of the nationwide ].<ref name="GeorgeEdwards" /> In ], there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, so it is uncertain what the national popular vote would have been if all presidential electors had been popularly elected. When no presidential candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the ] and so could be considered distinct from the latter four elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors.<ref>{{cite web |title=Electoral College Mischief, The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2004 |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005582 |access-date=August 26, 2010 |publisher=Opinionjournal.com}}</ref> The true national popular vote was also uncertain in the ] election, and the plurality for the winner depends on how votes for Alabama electors are allocated.<ref name="trende">{{cite news |date=October 22, 2012 |title=Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote? |publisher=RealClearPolitics |url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular_vote_115833.html |access-date=October 23, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| ===== Comparison of the four elections in which the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote ===== | |||
| '''Elections where the popular vote and electoral college results differed''' | |||
| * 1876: ] received 50.92% of America's votes, ] received 47.92% | |||
| * |
* 1800: ] won with 61.4% of the popular vote; ] had 38.6%* | ||
| * |
* 1824: ] won with 30.9% of the popular vote; ] had 41.4%* | ||
| * 1836 (only for vice president): ] won with 63.5% of the popular vote; ] had 30.8%* | |||
| * 2016: ] received 48.02% of America's votes, ] received 45.93% | |||
| * 1876: ] (D) received 50.9% of the vote, ] (R) received 47.9% | |||
| * 1888: ] (D) received 48.6% of the vote, ] (R) received 47.8% | |||
| * 2000: ] (D) received 48.4% of the vote, ] (R) received 47.9% | |||
| * 2016: ] (D) received 48.2% of the vote, ] (R) received 46.1% | |||
| ''*These popular vote tallies are partial because several of the states still used their legislature to choose electors not a popular vote. In both elections a tied electoral college threw the contest over to Congress to decide.'' | |||
| === Favors largest swing states === | |||
| {{main|Swing state}} | {{main|Swing state}} | ||
| ] and ] campaigns during the final five weeks of the ] |
] and ] campaigns, combined, during the final five weeks of the ]. Each waving hand (purple map) represents a visit from a presidential or vice presidential candidate. Each dollar sign (green map) represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Pearson|first1=Christopher|last2=Richie|first2=Rob|last3=Johnson|first3=Adam|title=Who Picks the President?|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/media/research/who_picks_president.pdf|publisher=FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy|page=7|date=November 3, 2005}}</ref>]] | ||
| The Electoral College encourages political campaigners to focus on a few so-called swing states while ignoring the rest of the country. Populous states in which pre-election poll results show no clear favorite are inundated with campaign visits, saturation television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers, and debates, while four out of five voters in the national election are "absolutely ignored", according to one assessment.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/its-time-end-electoral-college/|title=It's Time to End the Electoral College: Here's how.|journal=]|date=November 7, 2012}}</ref> Since most states use a ] arrangement in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes, there is a clear incentive to focus almost exclusively on only a few key undecided states.<ref name="GeorgeEdwards" /> | |||
| Critics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than a national direct popular vote and is subject to manipulation because of ];<ref name="auto4"/><ref name="auto6"/> that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "]";<ref name="auto8"/> and there can be elections where one candidate wins the national popular vote but another wins the electoral vote, as in the ] and ]s.<ref name="auto7"/> Individual citizens in less populated states with 5% of the Electoral College have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states,<ref name="auto9"/> and candidates can win by focusing their resources on just a few "]s".<ref name="auto5"/> | |||
| === Not all votes count the same === | |||
| According to this criticism, the Electoral College encourages political campaigners to focus on a few so-called "swing states" while ignoring the rest of the country. Populous states in which pre-election poll results show no clear favorite are inundated with campaign visits, saturation television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers, and debates, while "four out of five" voters in the national election are "absolutely ignored", according to one assessment.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/its-time-end-electoral-college/|title=It's Time to End the Electoral College: Here's how.|journal=]|date=November 7, 2012}}</ref> Since most states use a ] arrangement in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes, there is a clear incentive to focus almost exclusively on only a few key undecided states; in recent elections, these states have included ], ], and ] in 2004 and 2008, and included ] in 2012. In contrast, states with large populations such as ], ], and ], have in recent elections been considered "safe" for a particular party — ] for California and New York and ] for Texas — and therefore campaigns spend less time and money there. Many small states are also considered to be "safe" for one of the two political parties and are also generally ignored by campaigners: of the 13 smallest states, six are reliably Democratic, six are reliably Republican, and only New Hampshire is considered as a swing state, according to critic ] in 2011.<ref name="GeorgeEdwards">{{Cite book|last=Edwards III|first=George C.|authorlink=George C. Edwards III| title=Why the Electoral College is Bad for America|publisher=Yale University Press|edition=Second|year=2011|location=New Haven and London|pages=1, 37, 61, 176–77, 193–94|isbn=978-0-300-16649-1}}</ref> Edwards also asserted that in the 2008 election, the campaigns did not mount nationwide efforts but rather focused on select states.<ref name="GeorgeEdwards" /> | |||
| Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which has increasingly given low-population states more electors per voter (or more voting power).<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite web |date=November 2, 2008 |title=Op-Chart: How Much Is Your Vote Worth? Op-Chart |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/02/opinion/20081102_OPCHART.html |via=The New York Times}}</ref> For example, an electoral vote represents nearly four times as many people in California as in Wyoming.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite book |last1=Miroff |first1=Bruce |url=https://archive.org/details/democraticdebate00miro |title=The Democratic Debate: An Introduction to American Politics |last2=Seidelman |first2=Raymond |last3=Swanstrom |first3=Todd |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company |year=2001 |isbn=0-618-05452-9 |edition=Third |url-access=registration}}<!--|access-date=October 6, 2015--></ref> On average, voters in the ten least populated states have 2.5 more electors per person compared with voters in the ten most populous states.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
| In 1968, ] developed the ] (BPI) which argued that a voter in the state of New York had, on average, 3.3 times as much voting power in presidential elections as the average voter outside New York.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Banzhaf |first=John |author-link=John Banzhaf |date=1968 |title=One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College |url=http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1780&context=vlr |journal=Villanova Law Review |volume=13 |pages=306}}</ref> Mark Livingston used a similar method and estimated that individual voters in the largest state, based on the 1990 census, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a president than voters of Montana.<ref>{{cite web |author=Livingston |first=Mark |date=April 2003 |title=Banzhaf Power Index |url=http://www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/ |website=Department of Computer Science |publisher=University of North Carolina}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is a blog post and not peer-reviewed (]).|date=October 2023}} | |||
| ==== Discouragement of turnout and participation ==== | |||
| Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout does not affect the election results due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite journal|last=Nivola|first=Pietro|title=Thinking About Political Polarization|publisher=Brookings Institution Policy Brief|date=January 2005|url=http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2005/01politics_nivola.aspx|issue=139|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080820060557/http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2005/01politics_nivola.aspx|archivedate=August 20, 2008}}</ref> If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.<ref>{{cite web|last=Koza|first=John|title=Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote|year=2006|page=xvii|url=http://www.every-vote-equal.com/files/Every-Vote-Equal.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061113010411/http://www.every-vote-equal.com/files/Every-Vote-Equal.pdf|archivedate=2006-11-13|display-authors=etal}}</ref> Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.<ref name="autogenerated1"/> | |||
| However, others argue that Banzhaf's method ignores the demographic makeup of the states and treats votes like independent coin-flips. Critics of Banzhaf's method say ] based models used to analyze the Electoral College have consistently found that sparsely populated states benefit from having their resident's votes count for more than the votes of those residing in the more populous states.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gelman |first1=Andrew |last2=Katz |first2=Jonathan |last3=Tuerlinckx |first3=Francis |year=2002 |title=The Mathematics and Statistics of Voting Power |url=http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/STS027.pdf |journal=Statistical Science |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=420–35 |doi=10.1214/ss/1049993201 |doi-access=free}}</ref> | |||
| ==== Obscuring disenfranchisement within states ==== | |||
| According to this criticism, the electoral college reduces elections to a mere count of electors for a particular state, and, as a result, it obscures any voting problems ''within'' a particular state. For example, if a particular state blocks some groups from voting, perhaps by ] methods such as imposing reading tests, poll taxes, registration requirements, or legally ] specific minority groups, then voting inside that state would be reduced, but as the state's electoral count would be the same, disenfranchisement has no effect on the overall electoral tally. Critics contend that such disenfranchisement is partially obscured by the Electoral College. A related argument is the Electoral College may have a dampening effect on voter turnout: there is no incentive for states to reach out to more of its citizens to include them in elections because the state's electoral count remains fixed in any event. According to this view, if elections were by popular vote, then states would be motivated to include more citizens in elections since the state would then have more political clout nationally. Critics contend the electoral college system insulates states from negative publicity as well as possible federal penalties for disenfranching subgroups of citizens. | |||
| === Lowers turnout === | |||
| Legal scholars ] and ] have argued that the original Electoral College compromise was enacted partially because it enabled Southern states to disenfranchise their slave populations.<ref name="amar">{{Cite journal|last=Amar|first=Akhil|last2=Amar|first2=Vikram|title=The Electoral College Votes Against Equality|journal=Los Angeles Times|date=September 9, 2004|url=http://www.fairvote.org/the-electoral-college-votes-against-equality/|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100415144403/http://www.fairvote.org/the-electoral-college-votes-against-equality|archivedate=2010-04-15}}</ref> It permitted Southern states to disfranchise large numbers of slaves while allowing these states to maintain political clout within the federation by using the ]. They noted that ] believed the question of counting slaves had presented a serious challenge, but that "the substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."<ref name="tws2H14">{{cite news|author=Katrina vanden Heuvel|title=It's Time to End the Electoral College|work=The Nation|quote=Electoral college defenders offer a range of arguments, from the openly anti-democratic (direct election equals mob rule), to the nostalgic (we've always done it this way), to the opportunistic (your little state will get ignored! More vote-counting means more controversies! The Electoral College protects hurricane victims!). But none of those arguments overcome this one: One person, one vote.|date=November 7, 2012|url=http://www.thenation.com/blog/171115/its-time-end-electoral-college|accessdate=November 8, 2012}}</ref> Akhil and Vikram Amar added: | |||
| Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout does not affect the election results due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite journal|last=Nivola|first=Pietro|title=Thinking About Political Polarization|date=January 2005|url=http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2005/01politics_nivola.aspx|issue=139|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080820060557/http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2005/01politics_nivola.aspx|archive-date=August 20, 2008|journal=Brookings Policy Brief|volume=139}}</ref> If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.<ref>{{cite web|last=Koza|first=John|title=Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote|year=2006|page=xvii|url=http://www.every-vote-equal.com/files/Every-Vote-Equal.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061113010411/http://www.every-vote-equal.com/files/Every-Vote-Equal.pdf|archive-date=2006-11-13|display-authors=etal}}</ref> | |||
| {{quote|The founders' system also encouraged the continued disfranchisement of women. In a direct national election system, any state that gave women the vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no such incentive to increase the franchise; as with slaves, what mattered was how many women lived in a state, not how many were empowered{{nbsp}}... a state with low voter turnout gets precisely the same number of electoral votes as if it had a high turnout. By contrast, a well-designed direct election system could spur states to get out the vote.<ref name="amar"/>}} | |||
| Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.<ref name="autogenerated1"/> | |||
| ==== Lack of enfranchisement of U.S. territories ==== | |||
| {{see also|Voting rights in the United States#Overseas and nonresident citizens}} | |||
| === Obscures disenfranchisement within states === | |||
| ] are not entitled to electors in presidential elections. Constitutionally, only U.S. states (per ]) and ] (per the ]) are entitled to electors. As a result of this restriction, roughly four million Americans in ], the ], the ], ], and ], do not have a vote in presidential elections.<ref name="Murriel"/><ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/17/the-electoral-college-badly-distorts-the-vote-and-its-going-to-get-worse/|title=The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it's going to get worse.|website=Washington Post|access-date=2016-11-17}}</ref> Various scholars consequently conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xDhWAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Supreme+Court+and+Puerto+Rico:+The+Doctrine+of+Separate+and+Unequal|title=The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal|first=Juan R.|last=Torruella|publisher=University of Puerto Rico Press|year=1985|isbn=0-8477-3031-X}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/citizen01.htm|title=Puerto Rico and a Constitutional Right to vote|author=José D. Román|publisher=University of Dayton|accessdate=2007-10-02}} (excerpted from: José D. Román, , 29 ''Fordham Urban Law Journal'' 1681–1713, 1697–1713 (April 2002) (316 Footnotes Omitted))</ref> Guam has held non-binding ]s for president since the 1980s to draw attention to this fact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/10/guam-legislature-moves-general-election-presidential-vote-to-the-september-primary/|title=Guam Legislature Moves General Election Presidential Vote to the September Primary|publisher=Ballot-Access.org|date=2008-07-10|accessdate=2014-07-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/06/164400277/in-guam-non-binding-straw-poll-gives-obama-a-commanding-win|title=In Guam, 'Non-Binding Straw Poll' Gives Obama A Commanding Win|publisher=NPR|date=2012-11-12|accessdate=2014-07-24}}</ref> The Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have, however, made it possible for people in U.S. territories to vote in ].<ref>{{cite news|title=Nominating, but not voting for president|last=Curry|first=Tom|date=May 28, 2008|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24839059|publisher=NBC News|accessdate=September 5, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Helgesen|first=Elise|title=Puerto Rico and Other Territories Vote in Primaries, But Not in General Election|url=https://www.fairvote.org/puerto-rico-and-other-territories-vote-in-primaries-but-not-in-general-election|date=March 19, 2012|website=Fair Vote|accessdate=September 7, 2019}}</ref> | |||
| According to this criticism, the electoral college reduces elections to a mere count of electors for a particular state, and, as a result, it obscures any voting problems ''within'' a particular state. For example, if a particular state blocks some groups from voting, perhaps by ] methods such as imposing reading tests, poll taxes, registration requirements, or legally ] specific groups (like women or people of color), then voting inside that state would be reduced, but as the state's electoral count would be the same, disenfranchisement has no effect on its overall electoral power. Critics contend that such disenfranchisement is not penalized by the Electoral College. | |||
| A related argument is the Electoral College may have a dampening effect on voter turnout: there is no incentive for states to reach out to more of its citizens to include them in elections because the state's electoral count remains fixed in any event. According to this view, if elections were by popular vote, then states would be motivated to include more citizens in elections since the state would then have more political clout nationally. Critics contend the electoral college system insulates states from negative publicity as well as possible federal penalties for disenfranchising subgroups of citizens. | |||
| ==== Advantage based on state population ==== | |||
| Researchers have variously attempted to measure which states' voters have the greatest impact in such an indirect election. | |||
| Legal scholars ] and ] have argued that the original Electoral College compromise was enacted partially because it enabled Southern states to disenfranchise their slave populations.<ref name="amar">{{Cite journal|last1=Amar|first1=Akhil|last2=Amar|first2=Vikram|title=The Electoral College Votes Against Equality|journal=Los Angeles Times|date=September 9, 2004|url=http://www.fairvote.org/the-electoral-college-votes-against-equality/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100415144403/http://www.fairvote.org/the-electoral-college-votes-against-equality|archive-date=2010-04-15}}</ref> It permitted Southern states to disfranchise large numbers of slaves while allowing these states to maintain political clout and prevent Northern dominance within the federation by using the ]. They noted that ] believed the question of counting slaves had presented a serious challenge, but that "the substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."<ref name="tws2H14">{{cite news|author=Katrina vanden Heuvel|title=It's Time to End the Electoral College|work=The Nation|quote=Electoral college defenders offer a range of arguments, from the openly anti-democratic (direct election equals mob rule), to the nostalgic (we've always done it this way), to the opportunistic (your little state will get ignored! More vote-counting means more controversies! The Electoral College protects hurricane victims!). But none of those arguments overcome this one: One person, one vote.|date=November 7, 2012|url=http://www.thenation.com/blog/171115/its-time-end-electoral-college|access-date=November 8, 2012}}</ref> Akhil and Vikram Amar added: | |||
| Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which gives low-population states a disproportionate number of electors per capita.<ref name=":0" /> For example, an electoral vote represents nearly four times as many people in California as in Wyoming.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite book|last1=Miroff|first1=Bruce|last2=Seidelman|first2=Raymond|last3=Swanstrom|first3=Todd|title=The Democratic Debate: An Introduction to American Politics|url=https://archive.org/details/democraticdebate00miro|url-access=registration|date=November 2001|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company|isbn=0-618-05452-9|edition=Third}}<!--|accessdate=6 October 2015--></ref> Sparsely populated states are likely to be increasingly overrepresented in the electoral college over time, because Americans are increasingly moving to big cities and because cities are growing especially in the biggest states.<ref name=":0" /> This analysis gives a strong advantage to the smallest states, but ignores any extra influence that comes from larger states' ability to deliver their votes as a single bloc. | |||
| {{blockquote|The founders' system also encouraged the continued disfranchisement of women. In a direct national election system, any state that gave women the vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no such incentive to increase the franchise; as with slaves, what mattered was how many women lived in a state, not how many were empowered{{nbsp}}... a state with low voter turnout gets precisely the same number of electoral votes as if it had a high turnout. By contrast, a well-designed direct election system could spur states to get out the vote.<ref name="amar"/>}} | |||
| After the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, white voters in Southern states benefited from elimination of the Three-Fifths Compromise because with all former slaves counted as one person, instead of 3/5, Southern states increased their share of electors in the Electoral College. Southern states also enacted laws that restricted access to voting by former slaves, thereby increasing the electoral weight of votes by southern whites.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.history.com/news/jim-crow-laws-black-vote|title=How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed the African American Vote for Generations|date=May 13, 2021|website=history.com}}</ref> | |||
| Countervailing analyses which do take into consideration the sizes of the electoral voting blocs, such as the ] (BPI) model based on ] lead to very different conclusions about voters' relative power.{{Clarify|date=November 2016}} In 1968, ] (who developed the Banzhaf power index) determined that a voter in the state of New York had, on average, 3.312 times as much voting power in presidential elections as a voter in any other U.S. state.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Banzhaf|first=John|date=1968|title=One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College|url=http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1780&context=vlr|journal=Villanova Law Review|volume=13}}</ref> It was found that based on 1990 census and districting, individual voters in California, the largest state, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a president than voters of Montana, the largest of the states allocating the minimum of three electors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/|title=Banzhaf Power Index|author=Mark Livingston, Department of Computer Science|publisher=University of North Carolina}}</ref> Because Banzhaf's method ignores the demographic makeup of the states, it has been criticized for treating votes like independent coin-flips. More empirically based models of voting yield results that seem to favor larger states less.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gelman|first=Andrew|last2=Katz|first2=Jonathan|title=The Mathematics and Statistics of Voting Power|journal=Statistical Science|volume=17|issue=4|pages=420–@35|year=2002|url=http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/STS027.pdf|doi=10.1214/ss/1049993201|last3=Tuerlinckx|first3=Francis}}</ref> | |||
| Minorities tend to be disproportionately located in noncompetitive states, reducing their impact on the overall election and over-representing white voters who have tended to live in the swing states that decide elections.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Gelman |first1=Andrew |last2=Kremp |first2=Pierre-Antoine |date=2016-11-22 |title=The Electoral College magnifies the power of white voters |url=https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/22/13713148/electoral-college-democracy-race-white-voters |access-date=2021-02-01 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hoffman |first=Matthew M. |date=1996 |title=The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/797244 |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=105 |issue=4 |pages=935–1021 |doi=10.2307/797244|jstor=797244 }}</ref> | |||
| ==== Disadvantage for third parties ==== | |||
| {{see also|Duverger's law|Two-party system#Causes|label 2=Causes of a two-party system}} | |||
| === Americans in U.S. territories cannot vote === | |||
| In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4312|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090109153753/http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4312|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 9, 2009|title=Third Parties?|author=Jerry Fresia|date=February 28, 2006|publisher=Zmag.org|accessdate=August 26, 2010}}</ref> However, it has been argued{{who|date=March 2020}} that the Electoral College is not a cause of the two-party system, and that it had a tendency to improve the chances of third-party candidates in some situations.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Schmidt, Steffen W.|authorlink1=Steffen Schmidt|author2=Shelley, Mack C.|author3=Bardes, Barbara A|title=American Government and Politics Today 2008–2009|publisher=Wadsworth Publishing Company|year=2008 | |||
| {{see also|Voting rights in the United States#Overseas and nonresident citizens}} | |||
| |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QJrSm1q-gbQC&pg=PA173&dq=%22two-party+system%22+United+States+historical+foundations#v=onepage&q=%22twoparty%20system%22%20United%20States%20historical%20foundations&f=false|accessdate=2010-11-22}}</ref>{{pageno|date=March 2020}}{{fv|date=March 2020}} | |||
| Roughly four million Americans in ], the ], the ], ], and ], do not have a vote in presidential elections.<ref name="Murriel"/><ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Collin |first=Katy |date=November 17, 2016 |title=The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it's going to get worse. |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/17/the-electoral-college-badly-distorts-the-vote-and-its-going-to-get-worse/ |access-date=2016-11-17}}</ref> Only U.S. states (per ]) and ] (per the ]) are entitled to electors. Various scholars consequently conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xDhWAAAACAAJ&q=The+Supreme+Court+and+Puerto+Rico:+The+Doctrine+of+Separate+and+Unequal|title=The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal|first=Juan R.|last=Torruella|publisher=University of Puerto Rico Press|year=1985|isbn=0-8477-3031-X}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/citizen01.htm|title=Puerto Rico and a Constitutional Right to vote|author=José D. Román|publisher=University of Dayton|access-date=2007-10-02}} (excerpted from: José D. Román, , 29 ''Fordham Urban Law Journal'' 1681–1713, 1697–1713 (April 2002) (316 Footnotes Omitted)).</ref> Guam has held non-binding ]s for president since the 1980s to draw attention to this fact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/10/guam-legislature-moves-general-election-presidential-vote-to-the-september-primary/|title=Guam Legislature Moves General Election Presidential Vote to the September Primary|publisher=Ballot-Access.org|date=2008-07-10|access-date=2014-07-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/06/164400277/in-guam-non-binding-straw-poll-gives-obama-a-commanding-win|title=In Guam, 'Non-Binding Straw Poll' Gives Obama A Commanding Win|publisher=NPR|date=2012-11-12|access-date=2014-07-24}}</ref> The Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have, however, made it possible for people in U.S. territories to vote in ].<ref>{{cite news|title=Nominating, but not voting for president|last=Curry|first=Tom|date=May 28, 2008|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24839059|publisher=NBC News|access-date=September 5, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Helgesen|first=Elise|title=Puerto Rico and Other Territories Vote in Primaries, But Not in General Election|url=https://www.fairvote.org/puerto-rico-and-other-territories-vote-in-primaries-but-not-in-general-election|date=March 19, 2012|website=Fair Vote|access-date=September 7, 2019}}</ref> | |||
| === Support === | |||
| ==== Maintenance of the nation's federal character ==== | |||
| ] (2019 American Community Survey)]] | |||
| === Disadvantages third parties === | |||
| The United States of America is a ] that consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast. | |||
| {{see also|Duverger's law|Two-party system#Causes|label 2=Causes of a two-party system}} | |||
| In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.<ref>{{cite web |author=Jerry Fresia |date=February 28, 2006 |title=Third Parties? |url=http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4312 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090109153753/http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4312 |archive-date=January 9, 2009 |access-date=August 26, 2010 |publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| For many years early in the nation's history, up until the ] (1830s), many states appointed their electors by a vote of the ], 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, to the detriment of the States.<ref name="FEC">{{cite web|author=Kimberling, William C.|title=The Electoral College|publisher=]|url=http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20010112063831/http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf|archivedate=October 11, 2001|date=May 1992|accessdate=January 3, 2008}}</ref> | |||
| === Federalism and state power === | |||
| In his book '']'', Professor ] elaborated on this advantage of the Electoral College, arguing to "mend it, don't end it," in part because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of states in federalism.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Sabato|first=Larry|title=A More Perfect Constitution|publisher=Walker Publishing Company|year=2007|edition=First U.S.|isbn=978-0-8027-1621-7|url=https://archive.org/details/moreperfectconst00saba|accessdate=July 30, 2009}}</ref> | |||
| ]]] | |||
| For many years early in the nation's history, up until the ] (1830s), many states appointed their electors by a vote of the ], 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, to the detriment of the States.<ref name="FEC">{{cite web |author=Kimberling |first=William C. |date=May 1992 |title=Opinion: The Electoral College |url=http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010112063831/http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf |archive-date=January 12, 2001 |access-date=January 3, 2008 |publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| ==== Criticality of the preference of minority groups in close states==== | |||
| Instead of decreasing the power of ]s by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win a close-battle state. This encourages candidates there to court a wide variety of such minorities and ]s.<ref name="FEC" /> | |||
| In his 2007 book '']'', Professor ] preferred allocating the electoral college (and Senate seats) in stricter proportion to population while keeping the Electoral College for the benefit of lightly populated swing states and to strengthen the role of the states in federalism.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sabato |first=Larry |url=https://archive.org/details/moreperfectconst00saba/page/151/mode/1up |title=A More Perfect Constitution |publisher=Walker Publishing Company |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-8027-1621-7 |edition=First U.S. |pages=151–164 |access-date=July 30, 2009}}</ref><ref name="FEC" /> | |||
| ==== Encouragement of stability through the two-party system ==== | |||
| {{main|Two party system}} | |||
| ] professor Norman R. Williams has argued that the Constitutional Convention delegates chose the Electoral College to choose the president largely in reaction to the experience during the ] where state governors were often chosen by state legislatures and wanting the new federal government to have an ].<ref name="Williams 2012 pp. 1539–1570">{{cite journal |last=Williams |first=Norman R. |year=2012 |title=Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional |url=https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview |url-status=live |journal=] |publisher=] |volume=2012 |issue=5 |pages=1539–1570 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506175208/https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview |archive-date=May 6, 2021 |access-date=October 14, 2020}}</ref> For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Electoral College would prevent, sinister bias, ] and ] in presidential elections by not permitting members of Congress or any other ] to serve as electors.{{sfn|Rossiter|2003|p=411}} | |||
| Proponents of the Electoral College see its negative effect on ] as beneficial. They argue that the two party system has provided stability because it encourages a delayed adjustment during times of rapid political and cultural change. 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 across the nation. Advocates of a national popular vote for president suggest that this effect would also be true in popular vote elections. Of 918 elections for governor between 1948 and 2009, for example, more than 90% were won by candidates securing more than 50% of the vote, and none have been won with less than 35% of the vote.<ref>. FairVote.org (2010-04-09). Retrieved on 2013-07-12.</ref> | |||
| ==== Flexibility if a presidential candidate dies ==== | |||
| According to this argument, the fact the Electoral College is made up of real people instead of mere numbers allows for human judgment and flexibility to make a decision, if it happens that a candidate dies or becomes legally disabled around the time of the election. | |||
| Advocates of the current system argue that human electors would be in a better position to choose a suitable replacement than the general voting public: according to this view, electors could act decisively during the critical time interval between when ballot choices become fixed in state ballots<ref>Note: this may be a few days or even weeks before an election; many states cannot change ballots at a late stage.</ref> until mid-December when the electors formally cast their ballots.<ref>Note: the day when the electors cast their votes is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.</ref> | |||
| In the ], defeated ] candidate ] died during this time interval, which resulted in disarray for the ], who also supported Greeley, but 63 of the 66 the Greeley electors were able to split their votes for four alternate candidates.<ref>Note: three electoral votes which were still cast for Greeley, despite him being dead, were rejected.</ref><ref name="tws2H11">{{cite news|author=Ethan Trex|title=Electoral College for dummies|publisher=CNN|quote=...{{nbsp}}In 1872, though, Democrat Horace Greeley died just over three weeks after Ulysses S. Grant thumped him in the election{{nbsp}}... electors who would have voted for Greeley simply spread their 66 votes among other Democratic candidates{{nbsp}}... Thomas Andrews Hendricks actually came in second in the election with 42 electoral votes despite not campaigning for the presidency{{nbsp}}...|date=November 4, 2008|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-04/living/mf.electoral.college_1_electors-popular-vote-cast-votes/3?|accessdate=November 8, 2012|df=mdy-all}}{{dead link|date=January 2019|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref><ref name="tws2H12">{{cite news|author=SHELLY FREIERMAN|title=NEWS WATCH; Looking for Comic Relief? Then Consider the Duke|work=The New York Times|quote=...{{nbsp}}(In 1872, Horace Greeley, opposing Ulysses S. Grant, got zero electoral votes to Grant's 286, but five other candidates received from one to 42 votes each).|date=November 2, 2000|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/02/technology/news-watch-looking-for-comic-relief-then-consider-the-duke.html|accessdate=November 8, 2012}}</ref> A situation in which the winning candidate died has never happened. | |||
| In the ], ] ] died six days before the election, when it was far too late for states to remove his name from their ballots; accordingly, Sherman was listed posthumously, with the eight electoral votes he would have received being cast instead for ].<ref name="tws2H13">{{cite news|author=JAMES BARRON|title=When the Vice Presidency Was a Job for New Yorkers|work=The New York Times|quote=...{{nbsp}}But Sherman died in office, less than a month before the election of 1912{{nbsp}}... The Republican Party designated Nicholas Murray Butler{{nbsp}}... as the candidate to receive Sherman's votes in the Electoral College{{nbsp}}...|date=August 27, 2012|url=http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/when-the-vice-presidency-was-a-job-for-new-yorkers/|accessdate=November 8, 2012}}</ref> | |||
| ==== Isolation of election problems ==== | |||
| Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of any election fraud, or other such problems, to the state where it occurs. It prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. For instance, recounts occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide.<ref>{{cite web|last=Darlington|first=Richard B.|url=http://www.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/electorl.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20000303014609/http://www.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/electorl.htm|archivedate=March 3, 2000|title=The Electoral College: Bulwark Against Fraud|publisher=Cornell University Department of Psychology|accessdate=August 26, 2010}}</ref> However, results in a single state where the popular vote is very close — such as Florida in 2000 — can decide the national election.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m3.php | title=Myths about Recounts | website=NationalPopularVote.com | publisher=National Popular Vote Inc | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081108045037/http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m3.php | archive-date=November 8, 2008}}</ref> | |||
| == Efforts to abolish or reform == | == Efforts to abolish or reform == | ||
| {{main|Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College}} | {{main|Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College}}{{See also|Electoral College abolition amendment}} | ||
| More resolutions have been submitted to amend the U.S. Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution.<ref name=":03"/> Since 1800, over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress. Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election, affords less-populous states an advantage, and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes. None of these proposals has received the approval of two thirds of ] and three fourths of the ] required to amend the Constitution.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43823.pdf |title=The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |date=2019-10-28 |last1=Neale |first1=Thomas H. |last2=Nolan |first2=Andrew |access-date=2020-11-08}}</ref> Ziblatt and Levitsky argue that America has by far the most difficult constitution to amend, which is why reform efforts have only stalled in America.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition=First |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 7}}</ref> | |||
| Since 1800, over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress. Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election, affords less-populous states an advantage, and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes. None of these proposals have received the approval of two-thirds of ] and three-fourths of the ] required to amend the Constitution.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43823.pdf |title=The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |date=2019-10-28 |last1=Neale |first1=Thomas H. |last2=Nolan |first2=Andrew |accessdate=2020-11-08}}</ref> | |||
| === Bayh–Celler amendment === | === 1969–1970: Bayh–Celler amendment === | ||
| The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the ] (1969–1971).<ref>For a more detailed account of this proposal read ''The Politics of Electoral College Reform'' by Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun (1972)</ref> The ] resulted in ] receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), ] 191 (35.5%), and ] 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had received only 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.<ref>, National Archives and Records Administration</ref> | The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the ] (1969–1971).<ref>For a more detailed account of this proposal read ''The Politics of Electoral College Reform'' by Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun (1972).</ref> The ] election resulted in ] receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), ] 191 (35.5%), and ] 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had received only 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.<ref>, National Archives and Records Administration.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| Representative ] (D–New York), chairman of the ], responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. With this system, the pair of candidates (running for president and vice-president) who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election.<ref>{{cite news|title=Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting|work=The New York Times|date=April 30, 1969|page=21}}</ref> | Representative ] (D–New York), chairman of the ], responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. With this system, the pair of candidates (running for president and vice-president) who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election.<ref>{{cite news|title=Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting|work=The New York Times|date=April 30, 1969|page=21}}</ref> | ||
| Line 2,536: | Line 2,681: | ||
| On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to{{nbsp}}6 to approve the proposal.<ref>{{cite news|title=House Unit Votes To Drop Electors|work=The New York Times|date=April 30, 1969|page=1}}</ref> Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969<ref>{{cite news|title=Direct Election of President Is Gaining in the House|work=The New York Times|date=September 12, 1969|page=12}}</ref> and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.<ref>{{cite news|title=House Approves Direct Election of The President|work=The New York Times|date=September 19, 1969|page=1}}</ref> | On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to{{nbsp}}6 to approve the proposal.<ref>{{cite news|title=House Unit Votes To Drop Electors|work=The New York Times|date=April 30, 1969|page=1}}</ref> Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969<ref>{{cite news|title=Direct Election of President Is Gaining in the House|work=The New York Times|date=September 12, 1969|page=12}}</ref> and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.<ref>{{cite news|title=House Approves Direct Election of The President|work=The New York Times|date=September 19, 1969|page=1}}</ref> | ||
| On September 30, 1969, President |
On September 30, 1969, President Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal, which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution{{nbsp}}1 by Senator ] (D–Indiana).<ref>{{cite news|title=Nixon Comes Out For Direct Vote On Presidency|work=The New York Times|date=October 1, 1969|page=1}}</ref> | ||
| On October 8, 1969, the ''New York Times'' reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition, and eight were solidly opposed.<ref>{{cite news|title=A Survey Finds 30 Legislatures Favor Direct Vote For President|work=The New York Times|date=October 8, 1969|page=1}}</ref> | On October 8, 1969, the ''New York Times'' reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition, and eight were solidly opposed.<ref>{{cite news|title=A Survey Finds 30 Legislatures Favor Direct Vote For President|work=The New York Times|date=October 8, 1969|page=1}}</ref> | ||
| Line 2,542: | Line 2,687: | ||
| On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic senators ] of Mississippi, ] of Arkansas, and ] of North Carolina, along with Republican senators ] of Nebraska, ] of Hawaii, and ] of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate.<ref>{{cite news|title=Senate Unit Asks Popular Election of the President|work=The New York Times|date=April 24, 1970|page=1|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/24/archives/senate-unit-asks-popular-election-of-the-president-amendment-to.html|first=Warren|last=Weaver}}</ref> He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.<ref>{{cite news|title=Bayh Calls for Nixon's Support As Senate Gets Electoral Plan|work=The New York Times|date=August 15, 1970|page=11}}</ref> However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.<ref name="NYT-9-18-70">{{cite news|title=Senate Refuses To Halt Debate On Direct Voting|work=The New York Times|date=September 18, 1970|page=1|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/18/archives/senate-refuses-to-halt-debate-on-direct-voting-plan-for-popular.html|first=Warren|last=Weaver}}</ref> | On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic senators ] of Mississippi, ] of Arkansas, and ] of North Carolina, along with Republican senators ] of Nebraska, ] of Hawaii, and ] of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate.<ref>{{cite news|title=Senate Unit Asks Popular Election of the President|work=The New York Times|date=April 24, 1970|page=1|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/24/archives/senate-unit-asks-popular-election-of-the-president-amendment-to.html|first=Warren|last=Weaver}}</ref> He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.<ref>{{cite news|title=Bayh Calls for Nixon's Support As Senate Gets Electoral Plan|work=The New York Times|date=August 15, 1970|page=11}}</ref> However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.<ref name="NYT-9-18-70">{{cite news|title=Senate Refuses To Halt Debate On Direct Voting|work=The New York Times|date=September 18, 1970|page=1|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/18/archives/senate-refuses-to-halt-debate-on-direct-voting-plan-for-popular.html|first=Warren|last=Weaver}}</ref> | ||
| On September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal,<ref>{{cite news|title=Senate Debating Direct Election|work=The New York Times|date=September 9, 1970|page=10}}</ref> and the proposal was quickly ]. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.<ref name="NYT-9-18-70" /> On September 17, 1970, a motion for ], which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,<ref name="NYT-9-18-70" /> failing to receive the then-required two-thirds majority of senators voting.<ref>The Senate in 1975 reduced the required vote for cloture from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). ''See'' </ref> A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, ] of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.<ref>{{cite news|title=Senate Puts Off Direct Vote Plan|work=The New York Times|date=September 30, 1970|page=1}}</ref> However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971. | On September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal,<ref>{{cite news|title=Senate Debating Direct Election|work=The New York Times|date=September 9, 1970|page=10}}</ref> and the proposal was quickly ]. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.<ref name="NYT-9-18-70" /> On September 17, 1970, a motion for ], which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,<ref name="NYT-9-18-70" /> failing to receive the then-required two-thirds majority of senators voting.<ref>The Senate in 1975 reduced the required vote for cloture from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). ''See'' </ref> {{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, ] of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.<ref>{{cite news|title=Senate Puts Off Direct Vote Plan|work=The New York Times|date=September 30, 1970|page=1}}</ref> However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971. | ||
| === Carter proposal === | === Carter proposal === | ||
| On March 22, 1977, President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter of reform to Congress that also included his expression of abolishing the Electoral College. The letter read in part:{{ |
On March 22, 1977, President ] wrote a letter of reform to Congress that also included his expression of abolishing the Electoral College. The letter read in part:{{blockquote|My fourth recommendation is that the Congress adopt a Constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular election of the President. Such an amendment, which would abolish the Electoral College, will ensure that the candidate chosen by the voters actually becomes president. Under the Electoral College, it is always possible that the winner of the popular vote will not be elected. This has already happened in three elections, 1824, 1876, and 1888. In the last election, the result could have been changed by a small shift of votes in Ohio and Hawaii, despite a popular vote difference of 1.7 million. I do not recommend a Constitutional amendment lightly. I think the amendment process must be reserved for an issue of overriding governmental significance. But the method by which we elect our President is such an issue. I will not be proposing a specific direct election amendment. I prefer to allow the Congress to proceed with its work without the interruption of a new proposal.<ref>'''', Jimmy Carter: "Election reform Message to the Congress", Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, ''The American Presidency Project.''</ref>}} | ||
| President Carter's proposed program for the reform of the Electoral College was very liberal for a modern president during this time, and in some aspects of the package, it went beyond original expectations.<ref name=CarterNYTimes77>"Carter Proposes End Of Electoral College In Presidential Votes", ''The New York Times'', March 23, 1977, |
President Carter's proposed program for the reform of the Electoral College was very liberal for a modern president during this time, and in some aspects of the package, it went beyond original expectations.<ref name=CarterNYTimes77>"Carter Proposes End Of Electoral College In Presidential Votes", ''The New York Times'', March 23, 1977, pp. 1, 18.</ref> | ||
| Newspapers like '']'' saw President Carter's proposal at that time as "a modest surprise" because of the indication of Carter that he would be interested in only eliminating the electors but retaining the electoral vote system in a modified form.<ref name="CarterNYTimes77"/> | Newspapers like '']'' saw President Carter's proposal at that time as "a modest surprise" because of the indication of Carter that he would be interested in only eliminating the electors but retaining the electoral vote system in a modified form.<ref name="CarterNYTimes77"/> | ||
| Newspaper reaction to Carter's proposal ranged from some editorials praising the proposal to other editorials, like that in the '']'', criticizing the president for proposing the end of the Electoral College.<ref>"Carter v. The Electoral College", ''Chicago Tribune'', March 24, 1977, Section 3, |
Newspaper reaction to Carter's proposal ranged from some editorials praising the proposal to other editorials, like that in the '']'', criticizing the president for proposing the end of the Electoral College.<ref>"Carter v. The Electoral College", ''Chicago Tribune'', March 24, 1977, Section 3, p. 2.</ref> | ||
| In a letter to ''The New York Times'', Representative ] (D-New York) highlighted the danger of the "flawed, outdated mechanism of the Electoral College" by underscoring how a shift of fewer than 10,000 votes in two key states would have led to President Gerald Ford winning the ] despite Jimmy Carter's nationwide 1.7 million-vote margin.<ref>{{cite news| title=Letters|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/15/archives/letters-to-reform-our-presidential-election-system-the-cabs.html| |
In a letter to ''The New York Times'', Representative ] (D-New York) highlighted the danger of the "flawed, outdated mechanism of the Electoral College" by underscoring how a shift of fewer than 10,000 votes in two key states would have led to President Gerald Ford winning the ] election despite Jimmy Carter's nationwide 1.7 million-vote margin.<ref>{{cite news| title=Letters|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/15/archives/letters-to-reform-our-presidential-election-system-the-cabs.html|access-date=August 18, 2017|work=The New York Times|date=15 March 1979}}</ref> | ||
| === |
=== Recent proposals to abolish === | ||
| Since January 3, 2019, ]s have been made proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wreg.com/2017/01/05/cohen-proposes-elimination-of-electoral-college/|title=Rep. Steve Cohen introduces constitutional amendment to abolish Electoral College|last=Morton|first=Victor|date=January 3, 2019|newspaper=]| |
Since January 3, 2019, ]s have been made proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wreg.com/2017/01/05/cohen-proposes-elimination-of-electoral-college/|title=Rep. Steve Cohen introduces constitutional amendment to abolish Electoral College|last=Morton|first=Victor|date=January 3, 2019|newspaper=]|access-date=January 5, 2019|archive-date=July 7, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190707230501/https://wreg.com/2017/01/05/cohen-proposes-elimination-of-electoral-college/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://fortune.com/2019/04/02/abolish-the-electoral-college-votes/|title=Why Democrats Want to Abolish the Electoral College—and Republicans Want to Keep It|last=Morton|first=Victor|date=January 3, 2019|newspaper=]|access-date=January 5, 2019}}</ref> Unlike the Bayh–Celler amendment, with its 40% threshold for election, these proposals do not require a candidate to achieve a certain percentage of votes to be elected.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/7/text|title=Text – H.J.Res. 7 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice president of the United States.|first=Steve|last=Cohen|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/16/text|title=Text – S.J.Res. 16 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice President of the United States.|first=Jeff|last=Merkley|date=March 28, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/sjres17/BILLS-116sjres17is.xml|title=Text – S.J.Res. 17 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States.|first=Brian|last=Schatz|date=April 2, 2019}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} | ||
| === National Popular Vote Interstate Compact === | === National Popular Vote Interstate Compact === | ||
| {{main|National Popular Vote Interstate Compact}} | {{main|National Popular Vote Interstate Compact}} | ||
| {{see also|Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact}} | |||
| As of |
As of April 2024, seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.<ref name="ssn">{{cite web |author=Susan Sun Numamaker |date=July 9, 2020 |title=What Is National Popular Vote Bill/National Popular Vote Interstate Compact & Why Is It Important |url=https://windermeresun.com/2020/07/09/what-is-national-popular-vote-bill-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-why-is-it-important/ |access-date=July 14, 2020 |website=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/eve-4th-ed-ch6-web-v1.pdf#page=5|title=Text of the compact|publisher=National Popular Vote}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable (]).|date=February 2024}} Those joining the ] will, acting together ] reflecting a majority of electors (at least 270), pledge their electors to the winner of the national ]. The compact applies ] of the Constitution, which gives each state legislature the ] to determine how it chooses electors. | ||
| Some scholars have suggested that ] of the Constitution requires ] consent before the compact could be enforceable;<ref>Neale, Thomas H. Congressional Research Service pp. 21–22, viewed November 23, 2014.</ref> thus, any attempted implementation of the compact without congressional consent could face court challenges to its constitutionality. Others have suggested that the compact's legality was strengthened by '']'', in which the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to enforce electors' pledges.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fadem |first1=Barry |title=Supreme |
Some scholars have suggested that ] of the Constitution requires ] consent before the compact could be enforceable;<ref>Neale, Thomas H. Congressional Research Service pp. 21–22, viewed November 23, 2014.</ref> thus, any attempted implementation of the compact without congressional consent could face court challenges to its constitutionality. Others have suggested that the compact's legality was strengthened by '']'', in which the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to enforce electors' pledges.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fadem |first1=Barry |title=Supreme Court's "faithless electors" decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact |url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/ |publisher=Brookings Institution |access-date=August 4, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200717034751/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/ |archive-date=July 17, 2020 |date=July 14, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Litt |first1=David |title=The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College. It's Up to Us to End It |date=July 7, 2020 |url=https://time.com/5863481/supreme-court-faithless-electors-electoral-college/ |publisher=Time |access-date=August 4, 2020 |quote=After all, the same constitutional principles that allow a state to bind its electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote should allow it to bind its electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. This means that if states that combine to hold a majority of electoral votes all agree to support the popular-vote winner, they can do an end-run around the Electoral College. America would still have its clumsy two-step process for presidential elections. But the people's choice and the electors' choice would be guaranteed to match up every time.}}</ref> | ||
| The eighteen adherents of the compact have 209 electors, which is 77% of the 270 required for it to take effect, or be considered justiciable.<ref name=ssn/>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable (]).|date=February 2024}} | |||
| === Litigation based on the 14th amendment === | |||
| == Notes == | |||
| It has been argued by the advocacy group ] that the ] of the ] bars the winner-takes-all apportionment of electors by the states. According to this argument, the votes of the losing party are discarded entirely, thereby leading to an unequal position between different voters in the same state.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Equal Votes |url=https://equalcitizens.us/equal-votes/ |access-date=2020-12-31 |website=] |language=en-US}}</ref> Lawsuits have been filed to this end in ], ], ] and ], though all have been unsuccessful.<ref name=":1" /> | |||
| {{notelist}} | |||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
| {{Portal|Politics|United States}} | {{Portal|Politics|United States}} | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * Lists of United States presidential electors (], ], ], ], ]) | * Lists of United States presidential electors (], ], ], ], ], ], ]) | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| == Notes == | |||
| {{notelist}} | |||
| == References == | == References == | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| ; | |||
| ==Works cited== | |||
| * {{cite book |last=Beeman |first=Richard |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yz_68SNGKuMC |title=Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution |year=2010 |publisher=Random House |isbn=9780812976847}} | |||
| * {{cite report|last=Neale|first=Thomas H.|date=October 9, 2020|title=Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44648|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020b}}|access-date=July 5, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report|last=Neale|first=Thomas H.|date=July 14, 2020|title=Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46450|ref={{sfnRef|Neale|2020a}}|access-date=July 19, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report|title=Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency|date=June 2009|publisher=Continuity of Government Commission|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Continuity of Government Commission|2009}}|access-date=May 18, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report|title=Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol|date=December 22, 2022|publisher=]|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|House Select January 6 Committee|2022}}|access-date=July 7, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report|title=Report on the Electoral Count Act of 1887: Proposals for Reform|date=2022|publisher=]|url=https://cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/documents/Electoral%20Count%20Act%20Staff%20Report_.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|House Administration Committee|2022}}|access-date=May 18, 2023|archive-date=May 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230518215903/https://cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/documents/Electoral%20Count%20Act%20Staff%20Report_.pdf|url-status=dead}} | |||
| * {{cite report|title=Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II|date=June 19, 2020|publisher=United States Department of Justice|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.205521/gov.uscourts.dcd.205521.122.1.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Justice Department|2020a}}|access-date=July 1, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report|title=Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume II of II|date=June 19, 2020|publisher=United States Department of Justice|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.205521/gov.uscourts.dcd.205521.122.2.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Justice Department|2020b}}|access-date=July 1, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report |title=Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views |date=July 25, 2019 |publisher=United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence |url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf |ref={{sfnRef|Senate Intelligence Committee|2019a}} |access-date=June 21, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report|title=Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 2: Russia's Use of Social Media with Additional Views|date=October 8, 2019|publisher=United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf|ref={{sfnRef|Senate Intelligence Committee|2019b}}|access-date=June 23, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite report |title=Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities |date=August 18, 2020 |publisher=United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence |url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf |ref={{sfnRef|Senate Intelligence Committee|2020}} |access-date=June 23, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite book|title=The Federalist Papers|editor-first=Clinton|editor-last=Rossiter|editor-link=Clinton Rossiter|publisher=]|year=2003|isbn=9780451528810|title-link=The Federalist Papers}} | |||
| * {{cite report|last1=Rybicki|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Whitaker|first2=L. Paige|date=December 8, 2020|title=Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717|access-date=July 5, 2023}} | |||
| * {{cite journal|title=Third Session of the 42nd Congress|date=February 12, 1873|journal=]|publisher=]|volume=68|pages=334–346|url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj06845))|ref={{sfnRef|Senate Journal 42(3)}}|access-date=July 1, 2023}} | |||
| ==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
| * ], (review of ], ''Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?'', Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., {{ISBN|978-0674660151}}; and Jesse Wegman, ''Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College'', St Martin's Press, 2020, 304 pp., {{ISBN|978-1250221971}}), '']'', vol. 42, no. 10 (May 21, 2020), pp. 3, 5–6. Foner concludes (p. 6): "Rooted in distrust of ordinary citizens and, like so many other features of American life, in the institution of ], the electoral college is a relic of a past the United States should have abandoned long ago." | |||
| * ], ''Why the Electoral College is Bad for America'', second ed., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2011, {{ISBN|978 0 300 16649 1}}. | |||
| * ], "The |
* ], (review of ], ''Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?'', Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., {{ISBN|978-0674660151}}), '']'', vol. 311, no. 7 (October 5/12, 2020), pp. 42–44. Kazin writes: "] sought to replace with a national popular vote . e endure with the most ridiculous system for producing our head of state and government ." (p. 44.) | ||
| * {{cite journal |last1=Erikson |first1=Robert S. |last2=Sigman |first2=Karl |last3=Yao |first3=Linan |title=Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election |journal=] |date=2020 |volume=117 |issue=45 |pages=27940–944 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2013581117 |pmid=33106408 |pmc=7668185 |bibcode=2020PNAS..11727940E |doi-access=free}} | |||
| * ], "The Creaky Old System: Is the real threat to American democracy one of its own institutions?" (review of ], ''Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?'', Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., {{ISBN|978 0 674 66015 1}}), '']'', vol. 311, no. 7 (5 / 12 October 2020), pp. 42–44. Kazin writes: "] sought to replace with a national popular vote . e endure with the most ridiculous system for producing our head of state and government ." (p. 44.) | |||
| * ], '''', second ed., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2011, {{ISBN|978-0300166491}}. | |||
| * ], ''The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule'', Regnery Gateway, 2017, 320 pp., {{ISBN|978-1621576747}}. Ross concludes (p. xxii), "The Constitution's presidential election system is one of the few remaining marks of sanity in a political system that has gone awry in many other ways." | |||
| == External links == | == External links == | ||
| {{NIE |
{{NIE poster|Electoral College|year=1905}} | ||
| * | * by the ] | ||
| * by the ] | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * ] | |||
| * | |||
| * , January 9, 2009 (C-Span video) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * , video by Tala Schlossberg and Andrew Blackwell | |||
| {{Voting rights in the United States}} | {{Voting rights in the United States}} | ||
| {{United States presidential elections}} | {{United States presidential elections}} | ||
| {{ |
{{Constitution of the United States}} | ||
| {{United States Congress}} | |||
| {{Authority control}} | {{Authority control}} | ||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:United States Electoral College}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 22:54, 27 December 2024
Electors of the U.S. president and vice presidentFor electoral colleges in general, see Electoral college. For other uses and regions, see Electoral college (disambiguation).
In Maine (upper-right) and Nebraska (center), the small circled numbers indicate congressional districts. These are the only 2 states to use a district method for some of their allocated electors, instead of a complete winner-takes-all party block voting.
_US_House_of_Representatives.svg){kind=small}
In the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president. This process is described in Article Two of the Constitution. The number of electoral votes exercised by each state is equal to that state's congressional delegation which is the number of Senators (two) plus the number of Representatives for that state. Each state appoints electors using legal procedures determined by its legislature. Federal office holders, including senators and representatives, cannot be electors. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment granted the federal District of Columbia three electors (bringing the total number from 535 to 538). A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate achieves a majority, a contingent election is held by the House of Representatives, to elect the president, and by the Senate, to elect the vice president.
The states and the District of Columbia hold a statewide or district-wide popular vote on Election Day in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president, with some state laws prohibiting faithless electors. All states except Maine and Nebraska use a party block voting, or general ticket method, to choose their electors, meaning all their electors go to one winning ticket. Maine and Nebraska choose one elector per congressional district and two electors for the ticket with the highest statewide vote. The electors meet and vote in December, and the inaugurations of the president and vice president take place in January.
The merit of the electoral college system has been a matter of ongoing debate in the United States since its inception at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, becoming more controversial by the latter years of the 19th century, up to the present day. More resolutions have been submitted to amend the Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution. An amendment that would have abolished the system was approved by the House in 1969, but failed to move past the Senate.
Supporters argue that it requires presidential candidates to have broad appeal across the country to win, while critics argue that it is not representative of the popular will of the nation. Winner-take-all systems, especially with representation not proportional to population, do not align with the principle of "one person, one vote". Critics object to the inequity that, due to the distribution of electors, individual citizens in states with smaller populations have more voting power than those in larger states. Because the number of electors each state appoints is equal to the size of its congressional delegation, each state is entitled to at least three electors regardless of its population, and the apportionment of the statutorily fixed number of the rest is only roughly proportional. This allocation has contributed to runners-up of the nationwide popular vote being elected president in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In addition, faithless electors may not vote in accord with their pledge. A further objection is that swing states receive the most attention from candidates. By the end of the 20th century, electoral colleges had been abandoned by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an executive president.
Procedure
.jpg)
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution directs each state to appoint a number of electors equal to that state's congressional delegation (the number of members of the House of Representatives plus two senators). The same clause empowers each state legislature to determine the manner by which that state's electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from being named electors. Following the national presidential election day on Tuesday after the first Monday in November, each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws. After a popular election, the states identify and record their appointed electors in a Certificate of Ascertainment, and those appointed electors then meet in their respective jurisdictions and produce a Certificate of Vote for their candidate; both certificates are then sent to Congress to be opened and counted.
In 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate that the winner of the plurality of the statewide popular vote receives all of that state's electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, two electoral votes are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their congressional districts. The federal district, Washington, D.C., allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state's winning ticket; to prevent electors from being faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors' pledge.
The electors of each state meet in their respective state capital on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December, between December 14 and 20, to cast their votes. The results are sent to and counted by the Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.
Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a contingent election takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states. The Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote. The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20.
Since 1964, there have been 538 electors. States select 535 of the electors, this number matches the aggregate total of their congressional delegations. The additional three electors come from the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, providing that the district established pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 as the seat of the federal government (namely, Washington, D.C.) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populous state. In practice, that results in Washington D.C. being entitled to three electors.
Background
 | This section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "United States Electoral College" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state. The compromise was reached after other proposals, including a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."
In 1787, the Constitutional Convention used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for Congress to elect the president. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, delegates came to oppose nomination by Congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. James Wilson then made a motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.
Later in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details. They included the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change. Among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by Congress.
Once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:
There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.
The convention approved the committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 4, 1787. Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area, such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland, generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states. At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote, would decide most elections.
In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68, published on March 12, 1788, laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone, for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election. Hamilton explained that the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public, in a time before telecommunications. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.
Another consideration was that the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place where decision makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates, ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" attaining high office.
In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy) combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.
Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase 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".
History
| This section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "United States Electoral College" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Original plan
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president.
According to Stanley Chang, the original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:
- Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".
- The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".
- Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.
- Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.
- Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.
Election expert, William C. Kimberling, reflected on the original intent as follows:
"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."
According to Supreme Court justice Robert H. Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, the original intention of the framers was that the electors would not feel bound to support any particular candidate, but would vote their conscience, free of external pressure.
"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."
In support for his view, Justice Jackson cited Federalist No. 68:
'It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture... It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.'
Philip J. VanFossen of Purdue University explains that the original purpose of the electors was not to reflect the will of the citizens, but rather to "serve as a check on a public who might be easily misled."
Randall Calvert, the Eagleton Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis, stated, "At the framing the more important consideration was that electors, expected to be more knowledgeable and responsible, would actually do the choosing."
Constitutional expert Michael Signer explained that the electoral college was designed "to provide a mechanism where intelligent, thoughtful and statesmanlike leaders could deliberate on the winner of the popular vote and, if necessary, choose another candidate who would not put Constitutional values and practices at risk." Robert Schlesinger, writing for U.S. News and World Report, similarly stated, "The original conception of the Electoral College, in other words, was a body of men who could serve as a check on the uninformed mass electorate."
Breakdown and revision
In spite of Hamilton's assertion that electors were to be chosen by mass election, initially, state legislatures chose the electors in most of the states. States progressively changed to selection by popular election. In 1824, there were six states in which electors were still legislatively appointed. By 1832, only South Carolina had not transitioned. Since 1864 (with the sole exception of newly admitted Colorado in 1876 for logistical reasons), electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on Election Day. The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through indirect election by the citizens.
The emergence of parties and campaigns
Main article: Political parties in the United States See also: George Washington's Farewell Address § Political partiesThe framers of the Constitution did not anticipate political parties. Indeed George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796 included an urgent appeal to avert such parties. Neither did the framers anticipate candidates "running" for president. Within just a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, however, both phenomena became permanent features of the political landscape of the United States.
The emergence of political parties and nationally coordinated election campaigns soon complicated matters in the elections of 1796 and 1800. In 1796, Federalist Party candidate John Adams won the presidential election. Finishing in second place was Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists' opponent, who became the vice president. This resulted in the president and vice president being of different political parties.
In 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party again nominated Jefferson for president and also again nominated Aaron Burr for vice president. After the electors voted, Jefferson and Burr were tied with one another with 73 electoral votes each. Since ballots did not distinguish between votes for president and votes for vice president, every ballot cast for Burr technically counted as a vote for him to become president, despite Jefferson clearly being his party's first choice. Lacking a clear winner by constitutional standards, the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives pursuant to the Constitution's contingency election provision.
Having already lost the presidential contest, Federalist Party representatives in the lame duck House session seized upon the opportunity to embarrass their opposition by attempting to elect Burr over Jefferson. The House deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority vote of the state delegations in the House (The votes of nine states were needed for a conclusive election.). On the 36th ballot, Delaware's lone Representative, James A. Bayard, made it known that he intended to break the impasse for fear that failure to do so could endanger the future of the Union. Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont abstained, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson a majority.
Responding to the problems from those elections, Congress proposed on December 9, 1803, and three-fourths of the states ratified by June 15, 1804, the Twelfth Amendment. Starting with the 1804 election, the amendment requires electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president, replacing the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.
Evolution from unpledged to pledged electors
Some Founding Fathers hoped that each elector would be elected by the citizens of a district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.
In Federalist No. 68 Alexander Hamilton described the Founding Fathers' view of how electors would be chosen:
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated ... They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men , who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes ; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have EXCLUDED from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office ... Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias . Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it."
However, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities." According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station ."
Hamilton stated that the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." In a 2020 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court additionally cited John Jay's view that the electors' choices would reflect "discretion and discernment." Reflecting on this original intention, a U.S. Senate report in 1826 critiqued the evolution of the system:
It was the intention of the Constitution that these electors should be an independent body of men, chosen by the people from among themselves, on account of their superior discernment, virtue, and information; and that this select body should be left to make the election according to their own will, without the slightest control from the body of the people. That this intention has failed of its object in every election, is a fact of such universal notoriety that no one can dispute it. Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution. They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be. They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment: on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents. They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless...
In 1833, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story detailed how badly from the framers' intention the Electoral Process had been "subverted":
In no respect have the views of the framers of the constitution been so completely frustrated as relates to the independence of the electors in the electoral colleges. It is notorious, that the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates, and are silently pledged to vote for them. Nay, upon some occasions the electors publicly pledge themselves to vote for a particular person; and thus, in effect, the whole foundation of the system, so elaborately constructed, is subverted.
Story observed that if an elector does what the framers of the Constitution expected him to do, he would be considered immoral:
So, that nothing is left to the electors after their choice, but to register votes, which are already pledged; and an exercise of an independent judgment would be treated, as a political usurpation, dishonorable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents.
Evolution to the general ticket
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
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.
According to Hamilton, Madison and others, the original intent was that this would take place district by district. The district plan was last carried out in Michigan in 1892. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district." In other words, the name of a candidate for president was not on the ballot. Instead, citizens voted for their local elector.
Some state leaders began to adopt the strategy that the favorite partisan presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison said that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts, and it was inconceivable that a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay:
The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket .
Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. However, Federalist No. 68, insofar as it reflects the intent of the founders, states that Electors will be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass," and with regard to choosing Electors, "they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America." Several methods for selecting electors are described below.
Madison and Hamilton were so upset by the trend to "general tickets" that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan. Hamilton drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors. Hamilton's untimely death in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 prevented him from advancing his proposed reforms any further. "he election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.
Madison also drafted a constitutional amendment that would insure the original "district" plan of the framers. Jefferson agreed with Hamilton and Madison saying, "all agree that an election by districts would be the best." Jefferson explained to Madison's correspondent why he was doubtful of the amendment being ratified: "the states are now so numerous that I despair of ever seeing another amendment of the constitution."
Evolution of selection plans
In 1789, the at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina). New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York's legislature deadlocked over the method of choosing electors and abstained; North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.
By 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.
By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860. Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.
Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice. Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1992) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.
Correlation between popular vote and electoral college votes
Since the mid-19th century, when all electors have been popularly chosen, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most (though not necessarily a majority) popular votes nationwide, except in four elections: 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. A case has also been made that it happened in 1960. In 1824, when there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, the true national popular vote is uncertain. The electors in 1824 failed to select a winning candidate, so the matter was decided by the House of Representatives.
Three-fifths clause and the role of slavery
 | The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
After the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting three-fifths of slaves. On this basis after the first census, the Electoral College still gave the free men of slave-owning states (but never slaves) extra power (Electors) based on a count of these disenfranchised people, in the choice of the U.S. president.
At the Constitutional Convention, the college composition, in theory, amounted to 49 votes for northern states (in the process of abolishing slavery) and 42 for slave-holding states (including Delaware). In the event, the first (i.e. 1788) presidential election lacked votes and electors for unratified Rhode Island (3) and North Carolina (7) and for New York (8) which reported too late; the Northern majority was 38 to 35. For the next two decades, the three-fifths clause led to electors of free-soil Northern states numbering 8% and 11% more than Southern states. The latter had, in the compromise, relinquished counting two-fifths of their slaves and, after 1810, were outnumbered by 15.4% to 23.2%.
While House members for Southern states were boosted by an average of 1⁄3, a free-soil majority in the college maintained over this early republic and Antebellum period. Scholars conclude that the three-fifths clause had low impact on sectional proportions and factional strength, until denying the North a pronounced supermajority, as to the Northern, federal initiative to abolish slavery. The seats that the South gained from such "slave bonus" were quite evenly distributed between the parties. In the First Party System (1795–1823), the Jefferson Republicans gained 1.1 percent more adherents from the slave bonus, while the Federalists lost the same proportion. At the Second Party System (1823–1837) the emerging Jacksonians gained just 0.7% more seats, versus the opposition loss of 1.6%.
The three-fifths slave-count rule is associated with three or four outcomes, 1792–1860:
- The clause, having reduced the South's power, led to John Adams's win in 1796 over Thomas Jefferson.
- In 1800, historian Garry Wills argues, Jefferson's victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College as Adams would have won if citizens' votes were used for each state. However, historian Sean Wilentz points out that Jefferson's purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.
- In 1824, the presidential selection was passed to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was chosen over Andrew Jackson, who won fewer citizens' votes. Then Jackson won in 1828, but would have lost if the college were citizen-only apportionment. Scholars conclude that in the 1828 race, Jackson benefited materially from the Three-fifths clause by providing his margin of victory.
The first "Jeffersonian" and "Jacksonian" victories were of great importance as they ushered in sustained party majorities of several Congresses and presidential party eras.
Besides the Constitution prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808 and a duty on states to return escaped "persons held to service", legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the college was originally advocated by slaveholders as a bulwark to prop up slavery. In the Congressional apportionment provided in the text of the Constitution with its Three-Fifths Compromise estimate, "Virginia emerged as the big winner more than a quarter of the needed to win an election in the first round ." Following the 1790 United States census, the most populous state was Virginia, with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.
"The "free" state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia but got 20% fewer electoral votes." Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population. Historian Eric Foner agrees the Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise gave protection to slavery.
Supporters of the College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the president who helped abolish slavery, won a College majority in 1860 despite winning 39.8% of citizen's votes. This, however, was a clear plurality of a popular vote divided among four main candidates.
Benner notes that Jefferson's first margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted on a per capita basis. He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".
Delegates Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized a national popular vote. Of like view was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a member of Adams' Federalist Party, presidential candidate in 1800. He hailed from South Carolina and was a slaveholder. In 1824, Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by John Quincy Adams, a strong critic of slavery.
Fourteenth amendment
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state's representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote.
On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:
The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.
Federal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) implements Section 2's mandate.
Meeting of electors
See also: Electoral Count Act
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. And both Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and the Twelfth Amendment that replaced it specifies that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."
In 1887, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act, now codified in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code, establishing specific procedures for the counting of the electoral votes. The law was passed in response to the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors. Among its provisions, the law established deadlines that the states must meet when selecting their electors, resolving disputes, and when they must cast their electoral votes.
From 1948 to 2022, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College was "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment". As of 2022, with the passing of "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022", this was changed to be "on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed federal officials from being electors. The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.
After the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 unless another date is specified by law, and read aloud by the incumbent vice president, acting in his capacity as president of the Senate. If any person receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, that person is declared the winner. If there is a tie, or if no candidate for either or both offices receives an absolute majority, then choice falls to Congress in a procedure known as a contingent election.
Modern mechanics
Summary
Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the Federal Election Commission, the people only indirectly elect the president and vice president. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the 1824 election, the majority of states have chosen their presidential electors based on winner-take-all results in the statewide popular vote on Election Day.
As of 2020, Maine and Nebraska are exceptions as both use the congressional district method, Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992. In most states, the popular vote ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket). The slate of electors that represent the winning ticket will vote for those two offices. Electors are nominated by the party and, usually, they vote for the ticket to which are promised.
Many states require an elector to vote for the candidate to which the elector is pledged, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the Twelfth Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote winners as vice president.
Electors
Apportionment
Further information: United States congressional apportionment
A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the United States Congress. Each state is entitled to at least one representative, the remaining number of representatives per state is apportioned based on their respective populations, determined every ten years by the United States census. In summary, 153 electors are divided equally among the states and the District of Columbia (3 each), and the remaining 385 are assigned by an apportionment among states.
Under the Twenty-third Amendment, Washington, D.C., is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state but no more electors than the least populous state. Because the least populous state (Wyoming, in the 2020 census) has three electors, D.C. cannot have more than three electors. Even if D.C. were a state, its population would entitle it to only three electors. Based on its population per electoral vote, D.C. has the third highest per capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming and Vermont.
Currently, there are 538 electors, based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (54), Texas (40), Florida (30), New York (28), Illinois (19), and Pennsylvania (19). The District of Columbia and the six least populous states—Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming—have three electors each.
Nominations
The custom of allowing recognized political parties to select a slate of prospective electors developed early. In contemporary practice, each presidential-vice presidential ticket has an associated slate of potential electors. Then on Election Day, the voters select a ticket and thereby select the associated electors.
Candidates for elector are nominated by state chapters of nationally oriented political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some states, the electors are nominated by voters in primaries the same way other presidential candidates are nominated. In some states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina, electors are nominated in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committee of each candidate names their respective electoral college candidates, an attempt to discourage faithless electors. Varying by state, electors may also be elected by state legislatures or appointed by the parties themselves.
Selection process
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, from being an elector. Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each house.
All states currently choose presidential electors by popular vote. As of 2020, eight states name the electors on the ballot. Mostly, the "short ballot" is used. The short ballot displays the names of the candidates for president and vice president, rather than the names of prospective electors. Some states support voting for write-in candidates. Those that do may require pre-registration of write-in candidacy, with designation of electors being done at that time. Since 1992, all but two states have followed the winner takes all method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors.
Maine and Nebraska are the only states not using this method. In those states, the winner of the popular vote in each of its congressional districts is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electors. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992. The Supreme Court previously upheld the power for a state to choose electors on the basis of congressional districts, holding that states possess plenary power to decide how electors are appointed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).
The Tuesday following the first Monday in November has been fixed as the day for holding federal elections, called the Election Day. After the election, each state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment, each listing the candidates for president and vice president, their pledged electors, and the total votes each candidacy received. One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the National Archivist in Washington. The Certificates of Ascertainment are mandated to carry the state seal and the signature of the governor, or mayor of D.C.
Meetings
| External media | |
|---|---|
| Images | |
 A 2020 Pennsylvania elector holds a ballot for Joe Biden (Biden's name is handwritten on the blank line). Reuters. December 14, 2020. | |
| A closeup of the 2020 Georgia Electoral College ballot for Kamala Harris (using a format in which Harris's name is checked on the pre-printed card). The New Yorker. December 18, 2020. | |
| Video | |
 2020 California State Electoral College meeting, YouTube video. Reuters. December 14, 2020. |
The Electoral College never meets as one body. Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the same day (set by Congress as the Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December) at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president.
Although procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow. The meeting is opened by the election certification official—often that state's secretary of state or equivalent—who reads the certificate of ascertainment. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the electoral votes. The attendance of the electors is taken and any vacancies are noted in writing. The next step is the selection of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many states, political officials give short speeches at this point in the proceedings.
When the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for president of the political party of the electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card. In North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. The next step is the casting of the vote for vice president, which follows a similar pattern.
Under the Electoral Count Act (updated and codified in 3 U.S.C. § 9), each state's electors must complete six certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote (or Certificate of the Vote) must be signed by all of the electors and a certificate of ascertainment must be attached to each of the certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote must include the names of those who received an electoral vote for either the office of president or of vice president. The electors certify the Certificates of Vote, and copies of the certificates are then sent in the following fashion:
- One is sent by registered mail to the President of the Senate (who usually is the incumbent vice president of the United States);
- Two are sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States;
- Two are sent to the state's secretary of state; and
- One is sent to the chief judge of the United States district court where those electors met.
A staff member of the president of the Senate collects the certificates of vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of the Congress. The certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. Alabama through Missouri (including the District of Columbia) are placed in one box and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box.
Before 1950, the Secretary of State's office oversaw the certifications. Since then, the Office of Federal Register in the Archivist's office reviews them to make sure the documents sent to the archive and Congress match, and that all formalities have been followed, sometimes requiring states to correct the documents.
Faithless electors
Main article: Faithless electorAn elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector. A "faithless elector" is one who does not cast an electoral vote for the candidate of the party for whom that elector pledged to vote. Faithless electors are comparatively rare because electors are generally chosen among those who are already personally committed to a party and party's candidate.
Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have laws against faithless electors, which were first enforced after the 2016 election, where ten electors voted or attempted to vote contrary to their pledges. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. Altogether, 23,529 electors have taken part in the Electoral College as of the 2016 election. Only 165 electors have cast votes for someone other than their party's nominee. Of that group, 71 did so because the nominee had died – 63 Democratic Party electors in 1872, when presidential nominee Horace Greeley died; and eight Republican Party electors in 1912, when vice presidential nominee James S. Sherman died.
While faithless electors have never changed the outcome of any presidential election, there are two occasions where the vice presidential election has been influenced by faithless electors:
- In the 1796 election, 18 electors pledged to the Federalist Party ticket cast their first vote as pledged for John Adams, electing him president, but did not cast their second vote for his running mate Thomas Pinckney. As a result, Adams attained 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68, and Pinckney received 59, meaning Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, became vice president.
- In the 1836 election, Virginia's 23 electors, who were pledged to Richard Mentor Johnson, voted instead for former U.S. senator William Smith, which left Johnson one vote short of the majority needed to be elected. In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election was held in the Senate between the top two receivers of electoral votes, Johnson and Francis Granger, for vice president, with Johnson being elected on the first ballot.
Some constitutional scholars argued that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. However, the United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that state restrictions are allowed under the Constitution. In Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), the court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), and a related case, the court held that electors must vote in accord with their state's laws. Faithless electors also may face censure from their political party, as they are usually chosen based on their perceived party loyalty.
Joint session of Congress
Main articles: Electoral Count Act and Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act| External videos | |
|---|---|
| A joint session of Congress confirms the 2020 electoral college results, YouTube video. Global News. January 6, 2021. |
The Twelfth Amendment mandates Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election. The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors. Since the Twentieth Amendment, the newly elected joint Congress declares the winner of the election. All elections before 1936 were determined by the outgoing House.
The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College. The meeting is held at 1 p.m. in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. The sitting vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the president pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings. The vice president and the speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the vice president sitting to the right of the speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the senators and representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote, normally one member of each political party. Relevant portions of the certificate of vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order.
Before an amendment to the law in 2022, members of Congress could object to any state's vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. In 2022, the number of members required to make an objection was raised to one-fifth of each house. An appropriately made objection is followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each house of Congress. After both houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed.
A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both houses of Congress vote to accept the objection via a simple majority, meaning the votes from the state in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.
If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a state's votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally.
After the certificates from all states are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final state of the vote. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and of the vice president-elect. The senators then depart from the House chamber. The final tally is printed in the Senate and House journals.
Historical objections and rejections
Objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it has occurred a few times.
- In 1864, all votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected because of the American Civil War.
- In 1872, all votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected, due to allegations of electoral fraud, and due to submitting votes for a candidate who had died.
- After the crises of the 1876 election, where in a few states it was claimed there were two competing state governments, and thus competing slates of electors, Congress adopted the Electoral Count Act to regularize objection procedure.
- During the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Vice President Al Gore. The election had been controversial, and its outcome was decided by the court case Bush v. Gore. Gore, who as vice president was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised by representatives and would have favored his candidacy, after no senators would agree to jointly object.
- Objections were raised in the vote count of the 2004 election, alleging voter suppression and machine irregularities in Ohio, and on that occasion one representative and one senator objected, following protocols mandated by the Electoral Count Act. The joint session was suspended as outlined in these protocols, and the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both houses of Congress.
- Eleven objections were raised during the vote count for the 2016 election, all by various Democratic representatives. As no senator joined the representatives in any objection, all objections were blocked by Vice President Joe Biden.
- In the 2020 election, there were two objections, and the proceeding was interrupted by an attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump. Objections to the votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania were each raised by a House member and a senator, and triggered separate debate in each chamber, but were soundly defeated. A few House members raised objections to the votes from Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, but they could not move forward because no senator joined in those objections.
Contingencies
Further information: Contingent electionContingent presidential election by House
If no candidate for president receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes), then the Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to go into session immediately to choose a president. In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes en bloc—each delegation having a single vote. The District of Columbia does not get to vote.
A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., from 1959, which is the last time a new state was admitted to the union, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. Delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.
The House of Representatives has been required to choose the president only twice: in 1801 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; and in 1825 under the Twelfth Amendment.
Contingent vice presidential election by Senate
If no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to choose a vice president. The Senate is limited to choosing from the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. Normally this would mean two candidates, one less than the number of candidates available in the House vote.
However, the text is written in such a way that all candidates with the most and second-most electoral votes are eligible for the Senate election—this number could theoretically be larger than two. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each senator, not by state delegations). Two-thirds of the senators must be present for voting to take place.
The Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators, currently 51 of 100, is necessary for election. The language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur, although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.
The only time the Senate chose the vice president was in 1837. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical roll call and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "f a majority of the number of senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States"; the Senate chose Johnson.
Deadlocked election
Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon EST on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. Neither of these situations has ever arisen to this day.
Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power
See also: United States presidential assassination attempts and plots and United States federal government continuity of operationsIn Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton argued that one concern that led the Constitutional Convention to create the Electoral College was to ensure peaceful transitions of power and continuity of government during transitions between presidential administrations. While recognizing that the question had not been presented in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the majority opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) that "nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate" after noting that more than one-third of the cumulative faithless elector votes in U.S. presidential elections history were cast during the 1872 presidential election when Liberal Republican Party and Democratic Party nominee Horace Greeley died after the polls were held and vote tabulations were completed by the states but before the Electoral College cast its ballots, and acknowledging the petitioners concern about the potential turmoil that the death of a presidential candidate between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings could cause.
In 1872, Greeley carried the popular vote in 6 states (Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas) and had 66 electoral votes pledged to him. After his death on November 29, 1872, 63 of the electors pledged to him voted faithlessly, while 3 votes (from Georgia) that remained pledged to him were rejected at the Electoral College vote count on February 12, 1873, on the grounds that he had died. Greeley's running mate, B. Gratz Brown, still received the 3 electoral votes from Georgia for vice president that were rejected for Greeley. This brought Brown's number of electoral votes for vice president to 47 since he still received all 28 electoral votes from Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas, and 16 other electoral votes from Georgia, Kentucky, and Missouri in total. The other 19 electors from the latter states voted faithlessly for vice president.
During the presidential transition following the 1860 presidential election, Abraham Lincoln had to arrive in Washington, D.C. in disguise and on an altered train schedule after the Pinkerton National Detective Agency found evidence that suggested a secessionist plot to assassinate Lincoln would be attempted in Baltimore. During the presidential transition following the 1928 presidential election, an Argentine anarchist group plotted to assassinate Herbert Hoover while Hoover was traveling through Central and South America and crossing the Andes from Chile by train. The plotters were arrested before the attempt was made.
During the presidential transition following the 1932 presidential election, Giuseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt by gunshot while Roosevelt was giving an impromptu speech in a car in Miami, but instead killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was a passenger in the car, and wounded 5 bystanders. During the presidential transition following the 1960 presidential election, Richard Paul Pavlick plotted to assassinate John F. Kennedy while Kennedy was vacationing in Palm Beach, Florida, by detonating a dynamite-laden car where Kennedy was staying. Pavlick delayed his attempt and was arrested and committed to a mental hospital.
During the presidential transition following the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was targeted in separate security incidents by an assassination plot and a death threat, after an assassination plot in Denver during the 2008 Democratic National Convention and an assassination plot in Tennessee during the election were prevented.
During the presidential transition following the 2020 presidential election, as a result of former president Donald Trump's false insistence that he had won the election, the General Services Administration did not declare Biden the winner until November 23. The subsequent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6 caused delays in the counting of electoral votes to certify Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election, but was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the count from occurring.
Ratified in 1933, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment requires that if a president-elect dies before Inauguration Day, that the vice president-elect becomes the president. Akhil Amar has noted that the explicit text of the 20th Amendment does not specify when the candidates of the winning presidential ticket officially become the president-elect and vice president-elect, and that the text of Article II, Section I and the 12th Amendment suggests that candidates for president and vice president are only formally elected upon the Electoral College vote count. Conversely, a 2020 report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), stated that the balance of scholarly opinion has concluded that the winning presidential ticket is formally elected as soon as the majority of the electoral votes they receive are cast, according to the 1932 House committee report on the 20th Amendment.
If a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs before Election Day—as in 1912 when Republican nominee for Vice President James S. Sherman died less than a week before the election and was replaced by Nicholas Murray Butler at the Electoral College meetings, and in 1972 when Democratic nominee for Vice President Thomas Eagleton withdrew his nomination less than three weeks after the Democratic National Convention and was replaced by Sargent Shriver—the internal rules of the political parties apply for filling vacancies. If a vacancy on a presidential ticket occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings, the 2020 CRS report notes that most legal commentators have suggested that political parties would still follow their internal rules for filling the vacancies. However, in 1872, the Democratic National Committee did not meet to name a replacement for Horace Greeley, and the 2020 CRS report notes that presidential electors may argue that they are permitted to vote faithlessly if a vacancy occurs between Election Day and the Electoral College meetings since they were pledged to vote for a specific candidate.
Under the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I, Congress is delegated the power to "by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." Pursuant to the Presidential Succession Clause, the 2nd United States Congress passed the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 that required a special election by the Electoral College in the case of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency. Despite vacancies in the Vice Presidency from 1792 to 1886, the special election requirement would be repealed with the rest of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 by the 49th United States Congress in passing the Presidential Succession Act of 1886.
In a special message to the 80th United States Congress calling for revisions to the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, President Harry S. Truman proposed restoring special elections for dual vacancies in the Presidency and Vice Presidency. While most of Truman's proposal was included in the final version of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the restoration of special elections for dual vacancies was not. Along with six other recommendations related to presidential succession, the Continuity of Government Commission recommended restoring special elections for president in the event of a dual vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency due to a catastrophic terrorist attack or nuclear strike, in part because all members of the presidential line of succession live and work in Washington, D.C.
Under the 12th Amendment, presidential electors are still required to meet and cast their ballots for president and vice president within their respective states. The CRS noted in a separate 2020 report that members of the presidential line of succession, after the vice president, only become an acting president under the Presidential Succession Clause and Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, rather than fully succeeding to the presidency.
Current electoral vote distribution
| EV × States | States |
|---|---|
| 54 × 1 = 54 | California |
| 40 × 1 = 40 | Texas |
| 30 × 1 = 30 | Florida |
| 28 × 1 = 28 | New York |
| 19 × 2 = 38 | Illinois, Pennsylvania |
| 17 × 1 = 17 | Ohio |
| 16 × 2 = 32 | Georgia, North Carolina |
| 15 × 1 = 15 | Michigan |
| 14 × 1 = 14 | New Jersey |
| 13 × 1 = 13 | Virginia |
| 12 × 1 = 12 | Washington |
| 11 × 4 = 44 | Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee |
| 10 × 5 = 50 | Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin |
| 9 × 2 = 18 | Alabama, South Carolina |
| 8 × 3 = 24 | Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon |
| 7 × 2 = 14 | Connecticut, Oklahoma |
| 6 × 6 = 36 | Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah |
| 5 × 2 = 10 | Nebraska**, New Mexico |
| 4 × 7 = 28 | Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia |
| 3 × 7 = 21 | Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming |
| = 538 | Total electors |
- * The Twenty-third Amendment grants D.C. the same number of electors as the least populous state. This has always been three.
- ** Maine's four electors and Nebraska's five are distributed using the Congressional district method.
Chronological table
See also: Electoral vote changes between United States presidential elections| Election year |
1788–1800 | 1804–1900 | 1904–2000 | 2004– | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| '88 | '92 | '96 '00 |
'04 '08 |
'12 | '16 | '20 | '24 '28 |
'32 | '36 '40 |
'44 | '48 | '52 '56 |
'60 | '64 | '68 | '72 | '76 '80 |
'84 '88 |
'92 | '96 '00 |
'04 | '08 | '12 '16 '20 '24 '28 |
'32 '36 '40 |
'44 '48 |
'52 '56 |
'60 | '64 '68 |
'72 '76 '80 |
'84 '88 |
'92 '96 '00 |
'04 '08 |
'12 '16 '20 |
'24 '28 | ||
| # | Total | 81 | 135 | 138 | 176 | 218 | 221 | 235 | 261 | 288 | 294 | 275 | 290 | 296 | 303 | 234 251 |
294 | 366 | 369 | 401 | 444 | 447 | 476 | 483 | 531 | 537 | 538 | |||||||||
| State | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | Alabama | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | ||||||
| 49 | Alaska | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 48 | Arizona | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 | Arkansas | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |||||||||
| 31 | California | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 22 | 25 | 32 | 32 | 40 | 45 | 47 | 54 | 55 | 55 | 54 | ||||||||||||
| 38 | Colorado | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Connecticut | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| – | D.C. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Delaware | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 27 | Florida | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 21 | 25 | 27 | 29 | 30 | |||||||||||
| 4 | Georgia | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 16 |
| 50 | Hawaii | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 43 | Idaho | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | Illinois | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 24 | 24 | 27 | 27 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 19 | ||||||
| 19 | Indiana | 3 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | |||||
| 29 | Iowa | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | |||||||||||
| 34 | Kansas | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
| 15 | Kentucky | 4 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
| 18 | Louisiana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | ||||
| 23 | Maine | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||||
| 7 | Maryland | 8 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| 6 | Massachusetts | 10 | 16 | 16 | 19 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 |
| 26 | Michigan | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | |||||||||
| 32 | Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||||
| 20 | Mississippi | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||||
| 24 | Missouri | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | ||||||
| 41 | Montana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 37 | Nebraska | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||
| 36 | Nevada | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | New Hampshire | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 3 | New Jersey | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 |
| 47 | New Mexico | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | New York | 8 | 12 | 12 | 19 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 36 | 42 | 42 | 36 | 36 | 35 | 35 | 33 | 33 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 39 | 39 | 45 | 47 | 47 | 45 | 45 | 43 | 41 | 36 | 33 | 31 | 29 | 28 |
| 12 | North Carolina | 12 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 16 | |
| 39 | North Dakota | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | Ohio | 3 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 21 | 21 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 26 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 17 | |||
| 46 | Oklahoma | 7 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 | Oregon | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | |||||||||||||
| 2 | Pennsylvania | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 28 | 30 | 30 | 26 | 26 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 32 | 34 | 34 | 38 | 36 | 35 | 32 | 32 | 29 | 27 | 25 | 23 | 21 | 20 | 19 |
| 13 | Rhode Island | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| 8 | South Carolina | 7 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 |
| 40 | South Dakota | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | Tennessee | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | ||
| 28 | Texas | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 29 | 32 | 34 | 38 | 40 | |||||||||||
| 45 | Utah | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | Vermont | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 10 | Virginia | 12 | 21 | 21 | 24 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 17 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| 42 | Washington | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 35 | West Virginia | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | ||||||||||||||
| 30 | Wisconsin | 4 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||
| 44 | Wyoming | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| # | Total | 81 | 135 | 138 | 176 | 218 | 221 | 235 | 261 | 288 | 294 | 275 | 290 | 296 | 303 | 234 251 |
294 | 366 | 369 | 401 | 444 | 447 | 476 | 483 | 531 | 537 | 538 | |||||||||
Source: Presidential Elections 1789–2000 at Psephos (Adam Carr's Election Archive)
Note: In 1788, 1792, 1796, and 1800, each elector cast two votes for president.
Alternative methods of choosing electors
| Year | AL | CT | DE | GA | IL | IN | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MS | MO | NH | NJ | NY | NC | OH | PA | RI | SC | TN | VT | VA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1789 | – | L | D | L | – | – | – | – | – | A | H | – | – | H | L | – | – | – | A | – | L | – | – | D | |||||
| 1792 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | A | H | – | – | H | L | L | L | – | A | L | L | – | L | D | |||||
| 1796 | – | L | L | A | – | – | D | – | – | D | H | – | – | H | L | L | D | – | A | L | L | H | L | D | |||||
| 1800 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | L | – | – | L | L | L | D | – | L | A | L | H | L | A | |||||
| 1804 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | D | – | – | A | A | L | D | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||
| 1808 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | – | – | D | L | – | – | A | A | L | D | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||
| 1812 | – | L | L | L | – | – | D | L | – | D | D | – | – | A | L | L | L | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||
| 1816 | – | L | L | L | – | L | D | L | – | D | L | – | – | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||
| 1820 | L | A | L | L | D | L | D | L | D | D | D | A | L | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||
| 1824 | A | A | L | L | D | A | D | L | D | D | A | A | D | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | L | D | L | A | |||||
| 1828 | A | A | L | A | A | A | A | A | D | D | A | A | A | A | A | D | A | A | A | A | L | D | A | A | |||||
| 1832 | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | D | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | L | A | A | A | |||||
| Year | AL | CT | DE | GA | IL | IN | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MS | MO | NH | NJ | NY | NC | OH | PA | RI | SC | TN | VT | VA |
| Key | A | Popular vote, At-large | D | Popular vote, Districting | L | Legislative selection | H | Hybrid system |
|---|
Before the advent of the "short ballot" in the early 20th century (as described in Selection process) 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. 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. Alabama was still using the general ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot.
The question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature's choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote these words "operat as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power".
In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on McPherson. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), wrote: "othing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it."
Appointment by state legislature
In the earliest presidential elections, state legislative choice was the most common method of choosing electors. A majority of the state legislatures selected presidential electors in both 1792 (9 of 15) and 1800 (10 of 16), and half of them did so in 1812. Even in the 1824 election, a quarter of state legislatures (6 of 24) chose electors. In that election, Andrew Jackson lost in spite of having a plurality of both the popular vote and the number of electoral votes representing them. Yet, as six states did not hold a popular election for their electoral votes, the full expression of the popular vote nationally cannot be known.
Some state legislatures simply chose electors. Other states used a hybrid method in which state legislatures chose from a group of electors elected by popular vote. By 1828, with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, only Delaware and South Carolina used legislative choice. Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832). South Carolina continued using the method until it seceded from the Union in December 1860. South Carolina used the popular vote for the first time in the 1868 election.
Excluding South Carolina, legislative appointment was used in only four situations after 1832:
- In 1848, Massachusetts statute awarded the state's electoral votes to the winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner between the Democratic, Free Soil, and Whig parties, the state legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to the Whigs, which had won the plurality of votes in the state.
- In 1864, Nevada, having joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no choice but to legislatively appoint.
- In 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida legislatively appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections.
- In 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold a popular election.
Legislative appointment was brandished as a possibility in the 2000 election. Had the recount continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal safe-harbor deadline for choosing electors.
The Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state's electors are chosen and it can be 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 can have negative consequences: bicameral legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. This is precisely what happened to New York in 1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.
Electoral districts
Another method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state into electoral districts. By this method, voters in each district would cast their ballots for the electors they supported and the winner in each district would become the elector. This was similar to how states are currently separated into congressional districts. The difference stems from the fact that every state always had two more electoral districts than congressional districts. As with congressional districts, this method is vulnerable to gerrymandering.
Congressional district method
There are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another was used in New York in 1828 and proposed for use in Virginia. Under the implemented method, electors are awarded the way seats in Congress are awarded. One electoral vote goes per the plurality of the popular votes of each congressional district (for the U.S. House Of Representatives), and two per the statewide popular vote. This may result in greater proportionality. But it can give results similar to the winner-takes-all states, as in 1992, when George H. W. Bush won all five of Nebraska's electoral votes with a clear plurality on 47% of the vote; in a truly proportional system, he would have received three and Bill Clinton and Ross Perot each would have received one.
In 2013, the Virginia proposal was tabled. Like the other congressional district methods, this would have distributed the electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia's 11 congressional districts; the two statewide electoral votes would be awarded based on which candidate won the most congressional districts. A similar method was used in New York in 1828: the two at large electors were elected by the electors selected in districts.
A congressional district method is more likely to arise than other alternatives to the winner-takes-whole-state method, in view of the main two parties' resistance to scrap first-past-the-post. State legislation is sufficient to use this method. Advocates of the method believe the system encourages higher voter turnout or incentivizes candidates, to visit and appeal to some states deemed safe, overall, for one party.
Winner-take-all systems ignore thousands of votes. In Democratic California there are Republican districts, in Republican Texas there are Democratic districts. Because candidates have an incentive to campaign in competitive districts, with a district plan, candidates have an incentive to actively campaign in over thirty states versus about seven "swing" states. Opponents of the system argue that candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state and cases of gerrymandering could become exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe districts as they can.
Unlike simple congressional district comparisons, the district plan popular vote bonus in the 2008 election would have given Obama 56% of the Electoral College versus the 68% he did win; it "would have more closely approximated the percentage of the popular vote won ". However, the district plan would have given Obama 49% of the Electoral College in 2012, and would have given Romney a win in the Electoral College even though Obama won the popular vote by nearly 4% (51.1–47.2) over Romney.
Implementation
Of the 44 multi-district states whose 517 electoral votes are amenable to the method, only Maine (4 EV) and Nebraska (5 EV) apply it. Maine began using the congressional district method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the congressional district method since the election of 1992. Michigan used the system for the 1892 presidential election, and several other states used various forms of the district plan before 1840: Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and New York.
The congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, Nebraska had never split its electoral votes, while Maine had only done so once under its previous district plan in the 1828 election. Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska's 2nd congressional district, centered on the state's largest city, Omaha. Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the congressional district method and return to the winner-takes-all system. In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system; the bill died in committee in March 2011. Republicans had passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to do the same, which were vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.
More recently, Maine split its electoral votes for the first time under the congressional district method in 2016. Hillary Clinton won its two statewide electors and its 1st congressional district, which covers the state's southwestern coastal region and its largest city of Portland, while Donald Trump won the electoral vote of Maine's 2nd congressional district, which takes in the remainder of the state and is much larger by area. In the 2020 election, both Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes, following the same pattern of congressional district differences that were seen in 2008 and 2016 respectively: Nebraska's 2nd congressional district voted for Democrat Joe Biden while the remainder of the state voted for Republican Donald Trump; and Maine's 2nd congressional district voted for Trump while the remainder of the state voted for Biden.
Recent abandoned adoption in other states
In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so this was seen an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Democrat Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008 with 55% of its vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage. The plan later lost support. Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative Pete Lund, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have floated similar ideas.
Proportional vote
In a proportional system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.
Impacts and reception
Gary Bugh's research of congressional debates over proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College reveals reform opponents have often appealed to tradition and the preference for indirect elections, whereas reform advocates often champion a more egalitarian one person, one vote system. Electoral colleges have been scrapped by all other democracies around the world in favor of direct elections for an executive president.
Critics argue that the Electoral College is less democratic than a national direct popular vote and is subject to manipulation because of faithless electors; that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote"; and there can be elections where one candidate wins the national popular vote but another wins the electoral vote, as in the 2000 and 2016 elections. Individual citizens in less populated states with 5% of the Electoral College have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states, and candidates can win by focusing on just a few "swing states".
Polling ~40%
21st century polling data shows that a majority of Americans consistently favor having a direct popular vote for presidential elections. The popularity of the Electoral College has hovered between 35% and 44%.
Difference with popular vote
Opponents of the Electoral College claim such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle.
While many assume the national popular vote observed under the Electoral College system would reflect the popular vote observed under a National Popular Vote system, supporters contend that is not necessarily the case as each electoral institution produces different incentives for, and strategy choices by, presidential campaigns.
Notable elections
See also: List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular voteThe elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive at least a plurality of the nationwide popular vote. In 1824, there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, so it is uncertain what the national popular vote would have been if all presidential electors had been popularly elected. When no presidential candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the House of Representatives and so could be considered distinct from the latter four elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors. The true national popular vote was also uncertain in the 1960 election, and the plurality for the winner depends on how votes for Alabama electors are allocated.
Elections where the popular vote and electoral college results differed
- 1800: Jefferson won with 61.4% of the popular vote; Adams had 38.6%*
- 1824: Adams won with 30.9% of the popular vote; Jackson had 41.4%*
- 1836 (only for vice president): Johnson won with 63.5% of the popular vote; Granger had 30.8%*
- 1876: Tilden (D) received 50.9% of the vote, Hayes (R) received 47.9%
- 1888: Cleveland (D) received 48.6% of the vote, Harrison (R) received 47.8%
- 2000: Gore (D) received 48.4% of the vote, Bush (R) received 47.9%
- 2016: Clinton (D) received 48.2% of the vote, Trump (R) received 46.1%
*These popular vote tallies are partial because several of the states still used their legislature to choose electors not a popular vote. In both elections a tied electoral college threw the contest over to Congress to decide.
Favors largest swing states
Main article: Swing state.png)
The Electoral College encourages political campaigners to focus on a few so-called swing states while ignoring the rest of the country. Populous states in which pre-election poll results show no clear favorite are inundated with campaign visits, saturation television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers, and debates, while four out of five voters in the national election are "absolutely ignored", according to one assessment. Since most states use a winner-takes-all arrangement in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes, there is a clear incentive to focus almost exclusively on only a few key undecided states.
Not all votes count the same
Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which has increasingly given low-population states more electors per voter (or more voting power). For example, an electoral vote represents nearly four times as many people in California as in Wyoming. On average, voters in the ten least populated states have 2.5 more electors per person compared with voters in the ten most populous states.
In 1968, John F. Banzhaf III developed the Banzhaf power index (BPI) which argued that a voter in the state of New York had, on average, 3.3 times as much voting power in presidential elections as the average voter outside New York. Mark Livingston used a similar method and estimated that individual voters in the largest state, based on the 1990 census, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a president than voters of Montana.
However, others argue that Banzhaf's method ignores the demographic makeup of the states and treats votes like independent coin-flips. Critics of Banzhaf's method say empirically based models used to analyze the Electoral College have consistently found that sparsely populated states benefit from having their resident's votes count for more than the votes of those residing in the more populous states.
Lowers turnout
Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout does not affect the election results due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states. If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.
Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.
Obscures disenfranchisement within states
According to this criticism, the electoral college reduces elections to a mere count of electors for a particular state, and, as a result, it obscures any voting problems within a particular state. For example, if a particular state blocks some groups from voting, perhaps by voter suppression methods such as imposing reading tests, poll taxes, registration requirements, or legally disfranchising specific groups (like women or people of color), then voting inside that state would be reduced, but as the state's electoral count would be the same, disenfranchisement has no effect on its overall electoral power. Critics contend that such disenfranchisement is not penalized by the Electoral College.
A related argument is the Electoral College may have a dampening effect on voter turnout: there is no incentive for states to reach out to more of its citizens to include them in elections because the state's electoral count remains fixed in any event. According to this view, if elections were by popular vote, then states would be motivated to include more citizens in elections since the state would then have more political clout nationally. Critics contend the electoral college system insulates states from negative publicity as well as possible federal penalties for disenfranchising subgroups of citizens.
Legal scholars Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar have argued that the original Electoral College compromise was enacted partially because it enabled Southern states to disenfranchise their slave populations. It permitted Southern states to disfranchise large numbers of slaves while allowing these states to maintain political clout and prevent Northern dominance within the federation by using the Three-Fifths Compromise. They noted that James Madison believed the question of counting slaves had presented a serious challenge, but that "the substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections." Akhil and Vikram Amar added:
The founders' system also encouraged the continued disfranchisement of women. In a direct national election system, any state that gave women the vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no such incentive to increase the franchise; as with slaves, what mattered was how many women lived in a state, not how many were empowered ... a state with low voter turnout gets precisely the same number of electoral votes as if it had a high turnout. By contrast, a well-designed direct election system could spur states to get out the vote.
After the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, white voters in Southern states benefited from elimination of the Three-Fifths Compromise because with all former slaves counted as one person, instead of 3/5, Southern states increased their share of electors in the Electoral College. Southern states also enacted laws that restricted access to voting by former slaves, thereby increasing the electoral weight of votes by southern whites.
Minorities tend to be disproportionately located in noncompetitive states, reducing their impact on the overall election and over-representing white voters who have tended to live in the swing states that decide elections.
Americans in U.S. territories cannot vote
See also: Voting rights in the United States § Overseas and nonresident citizensRoughly four million Americans in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, do not have a vote in presidential elections. Only U.S. states (per Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) and Washington, D.C. (per the Twenty-third Amendment) are entitled to electors. Various scholars consequently conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic. Guam has held non-binding straw polls for president since the 1980s to draw attention to this fact. The Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have, however, made it possible for people in U.S. territories to vote in party presidential primaries.
Disadvantages third parties
See also: Duverger's law and Causes of a two-party systemIn practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.
Federalism and state power
For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era (1830s), many 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, to the detriment of the States.
In his 2007 book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato preferred allocating the electoral college (and Senate seats) in stricter proportion to population while keeping the Electoral College for the benefit of lightly populated swing states and to strengthen the role of the states in federalism.
Willamette University College of Law professor Norman R. Williams has argued that the Constitutional Convention delegates chose the Electoral College to choose the president largely in reaction to the experience during the Confederation period where state governors were often chosen by state legislatures and wanting the new federal government to have an executive branch that was effectively independent of the legislative branch. For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Electoral College would prevent, sinister bias, foreign interference and domestic intrigue in presidential elections by not permitting members of Congress or any other officer of the United States to serve as electors.
Efforts to abolish or reform
Main article: Efforts to reform the United States Electoral CollegeSee also: Electoral College abolition amendmentMore resolutions have been submitted to amend the U.S. Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the constitution. Since 1800, over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress. Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election, affords less-populous states an advantage, and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes. None of these proposals has received the approval of two thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states required to amend the Constitution. Ziblatt and Levitsky argue that America has by far the most difficult constitution to amend, which is why reform efforts have only stalled in America.
1969–1970: Bayh–Celler amendment
The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971). The 1968 election resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%), and George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had received only 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.
Representative Emanuel Celler (D–New York), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. With this system, the pair of candidates (running for president and vice-president) who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election.
On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to 6 to approve the proposal. Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969 and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.
On September 30, 1969, President Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal, which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1 by Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana).
On October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition, and eight were solidly opposed.
On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, along with Republican senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate. He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal. However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.
On September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal, and the proposal was quickly filibustered. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence. On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture, failing to receive the then-required two-thirds majority of senators voting. A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business. However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971.
Carter proposal
On March 22, 1977, President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter of reform to Congress that also included his expression of abolishing the Electoral College. The letter read in part:
My fourth recommendation is that the Congress adopt a Constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular election of the President. Such an amendment, which would abolish the Electoral College, will ensure that the candidate chosen by the voters actually becomes president. Under the Electoral College, it is always possible that the winner of the popular vote will not be elected. This has already happened in three elections, 1824, 1876, and 1888. In the last election, the result could have been changed by a small shift of votes in Ohio and Hawaii, despite a popular vote difference of 1.7 million. I do not recommend a Constitutional amendment lightly. I think the amendment process must be reserved for an issue of overriding governmental significance. But the method by which we elect our President is such an issue. I will not be proposing a specific direct election amendment. I prefer to allow the Congress to proceed with its work without the interruption of a new proposal.
President Carter's proposed program for the reform of the Electoral College was very liberal for a modern president during this time, and in some aspects of the package, it went beyond original expectations. Newspapers like The New York Times saw President Carter's proposal at that time as "a modest surprise" because of the indication of Carter that he would be interested in only eliminating the electors but retaining the electoral vote system in a modified form.
Newspaper reaction to Carter's proposal ranged from some editorials praising the proposal to other editorials, like that in the Chicago Tribune, criticizing the president for proposing the end of the Electoral College.
In a letter to The New York Times, Representative Jonathan B. Bingham (D-New York) highlighted the danger of the "flawed, outdated mechanism of the Electoral College" by underscoring how a shift of fewer than 10,000 votes in two key states would have led to President Gerald Ford winning the 1976 election despite Jimmy Carter's nationwide 1.7 million-vote margin.
Recent proposals to abolish
Since January 3, 2019, joint resolutions have been made proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president. Unlike the Bayh–Celler amendment, with its 40% threshold for election, these proposals do not require a candidate to achieve a certain percentage of votes to be elected.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Main article: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact See also: Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate CompactAs of April 2024, seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Those joining the compact will, acting together if and when reflecting a majority of electors (at least 270), pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact applies Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which gives each state legislature the plenary power to determine how it chooses electors.
Some scholars have suggested that Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires congressional consent before the compact could be enforceable; thus, any attempted implementation of the compact without congressional consent could face court challenges to its constitutionality. Others have suggested that the compact's legality was strengthened by Chiafalo v. Washington, in which the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to enforce electors' pledges.
The eighteen adherents of the compact have 209 electors, which is 77% of the 270 required for it to take effect, or be considered justiciable.
Litigation based on the 14th amendment
It has been argued by the advocacy group Equal Citizens that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the winner-takes-all apportionment of electors by the states. According to this argument, the votes of the losing party are discarded entirely, thereby leading to an unequal position between different voters in the same state. Lawsuits have been filed to this end in California, Massachusetts, Texas and South Carolina, though all have been unsuccessful.
See also
- Democratic backsliding in the United States
- List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin
- List of U.S. states and territories by population
- Lists of United States presidential electors (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024)
- Trump fake electors plot
- Voter turnout in United States presidential elections
Notes
- The constitutional convention of 1787 had rejected presidential selection by direct popular vote. That being the case, election mechanics based on an electoral college were devised to render selection of the president independent of both state legislatures and the national legislature.
- Writing in the policy journal National Affairs, Allen Guelzo argues, "it is worthwhile to deal directly with three popular arguments against the Electoral College. The first, that the Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote". In assigning electoral college votes by winner-take-all, the states themselves violate the one-person-one-vote principle. Hillary Clinton won 61.5% of the California vote, and she received all 55 of California's electoral votes as a result. The disparity in Illinois was "even more dramatic". Clinton won that state's popular vote 3.1 million to 2.1 million, and that 59.6% share granted her Illinois's 20 electoral votes.
- Although faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a state popular vote, or the national total, that scenario was further weakened by the 2020 court case Chiafalo v. Washington.
- Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee
- "It was ... peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. ... precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of Electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community, with any extraordinary or violent movements... the Electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated them the People, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."
- Section 1 of the 25th Amendment superseded the text of the Presidential Succession Clause of Article II, Section I that stated "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President". Instead, Section 1 of the 25th Amendment provides that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." Section 2 of the 25th Amendment authorizes the president to nominate a vice president in the event of a vacancy subject to confirmation by both houses of Congress.
- In 1841, the death of William Henry Harrison as president caused debate in Congress about whether John Tyler had formally succeeded to the Presidency or whether he was an acting president. Tyler took the oath of office and Congress implicitly ratified Tyler's decision in documents published subsequent to his ascension that referred to him as "the President of the United States". Tyler's ascension set the precedent that the vice president becomes the president in the event of a vacancy until the ratification of the 25th Amendment.
- For nearly one-fourth of the period of time from 1792 to 1886, the Vice Presidency was vacant due to the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield in 1865 and 1881 respectively, the deaths of Presidents William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor in 1841 and 1850 respectively, the deaths of vice presidents George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, William R. King, Henry Wilson, and Thomas A. Hendricks in 1812, 1814, 1853, 1875, and 1885 respectively, and the resignation of the vice presidency by John C. Calhoun in 1832.
- California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
- Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon
- Americans favored a Constitutional Amendment to elect the president by a nationwide popular vote on average 61% and those for electoral college selection 35%. In 2016 polling, the gap closed to 51% direct election versus 44% electoral college. By 2020, American thinking had again diverged with 58% for direct election versus 40% for the electoral college choosing a president.
References
- "Article II". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2024.
- Karimi, Faith (October 10, 2020). "Why the Electoral College has long been controversial". CNN. Retrieved December 31, 2021.
- Keim, Andy. "Mitch McConnell Defends the Electoral College". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved December 31, 2021.
- ^ Bolotnikova, Marina N. (July 6, 2020). "Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?". Harvard Magazine.
- Ziblatt, Daniel; Levitsky, Steven (September 5, 2023). "How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 20, 2023.
- Beeman 2010, pp. 129–130
- Beeman 2010, p. 135
- Guelzo, Allen (April 2, 2018). "In Defense of the Electoral College". National Affairs. Retrieved November 5, 2020.
- ^ Lounsbury, Jud (November 17, 2016). "One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live". The Progressive. Madison, Wisconsin: Progressive, Inc. Retrieved August 14, 2020.
- Neale, Thomas H. (October 6, 2017). "Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 24, 2020.
- ^ Mahler, Jonathan; Eder, Steve (November 10, 2016). "The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?". The New York Times. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
- ^ West, Darrell M. (2020). "It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College" (PDF).
- ^ "Should We Abolish the Electoral College?". Stanford Magazine. September 2016. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
- ^ Tropp, Rachel (February 21, 2017). "The Case Against the Electoral College". Harvard Political Review. Archived from the original on August 5, 2020. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
- ^ Collin, Richard Oliver; Martin, Pamela L. (January 1, 2012). An Introduction to World Politics: Conflict and Consensus on a Small Planet. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442218031.
- Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point (First ed.). New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
- Statutes at Large, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 721.
- Neale, Thomas H. (January 17, 2021). "The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline". Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on November 9, 2020. Retrieved November 19, 2020.
- ^ "What is the Electoral College?". National Archives. December 23, 2019. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
- "Distribution of Electoral Votes". National Archives. March 6, 2020. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
- "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
There are 33 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (16 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast.
- ^ "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022". October 18, 2022. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. December 8, 2020. Retrieved April 17, 2024.
- "Vision 2020: What happens if the US election is contested?". AP NEWS. September 16, 2020. Retrieved September 18, 2020.
- ^ Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). "The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 13. Retrieved July 29, 2018.
- Elhauge, Einer R. "Essays on Article II: Presidential Electors". The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 6, 2018.
- Ross, Tara (2017). The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule. Washington, D.C.: Regenary Gateway. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-62157-707-2.
- United States Government Printing Office. "Presidential Electors for D.C. – Twenty-third Amendment" (PDF).
- ^ Murriel, Maria (November 1, 2016). "Millions of Americans can't vote for president because of where they live". PRI's The World. Retrieved September 5, 2019.
- King, Ledyard (May 7, 2019). "Puerto Rico: At the center of a political storm, but can its residents vote for president?". USA Today. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved September 6, 2019.
- ^ Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 5". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
- "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
- Senate.gov.
- "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 2". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
- Matt Riffe, "James Wilson," Constitution Center>
- "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 4". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
- Mayer, William G. (November 15, 2008). The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2008. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-4719-3 – via Google Books.
- "James Wilson, popular sovereignty, and the Electoral College". National Constitution Center. November 28, 2016. Retrieved April 9, 2019.
- "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison" (PDF). Ashland University. Retrieved July 30, 2020.
- Records of the Federal Convention, p. 57 Farrand's Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress
- "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September 6". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
- "September 4, 1787: The Electoral College (U.S. National Park Service)". www.nps.gov.
- Madison, James (1966). Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. The Norton Library. p. 294. ASIN B003G6AKX2.
- Patrick, John J.; Pious, Richard M.; Ritchie, Donald A. (2001). The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-19-514273-0.
- "The Federalist 39". Avalon Project. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
- ^ Hamilton. The Federalist Papers: No. 68 The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. viewed November 10, 2016.
- The Twelfth Amendment changed this to the top three candidates,
- The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay The New American Library, 1961.
- "U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions". archives.gov. September 19, 2019.
- Chang, Stanley (2007). "Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation" (PDF). Harvard Journal on Legislation. 44 (205, at 208). Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2022. Retrieved May 28, 2020.
- ^ Hamilton, Alexander. "The Federalist Papers : No. 68", The Avalon Project, 2008. From the Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 22 Jan 2022.
- Hamilton, Alexander. Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 29 January 1802, National Archives, Founders Online, viewed March 2, 2019.
- Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations ." (Hamilton, Federalist 68). Hamilton strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, Draft of a Constitutional Amendment). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." (Madison to Hay, 1823 Archived May 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine)
- William C. Kimberling, Essays in Elections: The Electoral College (1992).
- "Ray v. Blair". LII / Legal Information Institute.
- VanFossen, Phillip J. (November 4, 2020). "Who invented the Electoral College?". The Conversation.
- "WashU Expert: Electoral College ruling contradicts Founders' 'original intent' – The Source – Washington University in St. Louis". The Source. July 6, 2020.
- Staff, TIME (November 17, 2016). "The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump". TIME.
- Robert Schlesinger, "Not Your Founding Fathers' Electoral College," U.S. News and World Report, December 27, 2016.
- "Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: [Selection of Electors, 1796—1832], McPherson v. Blacker". press-pubs.uchicago.edu.
- "Electoral College". history.com. A+E Networks. Retrieved August 6, 2018.
- Davis, Kenneth C. (2003). Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 620. ISBN 978-0-06-008381-6.
- "Today in History – February 17". Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
- Jr, Arthur Schlesinger (March 6, 2002). "Not the People's Choice". The American Prospect.
- Alexander, Robert M. (April 1, 2019). Representation and the Electoral College. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-093944-1 – via Google Books.
- ^ "Federalist No. 68". The Avalon Project.
- Justice Robert Jackson, Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952
- "Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)". Justia Law.
- "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875". memory.loc.gov.
- ^ "Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1449—52, 1454—60, 1462—67". press-pubs.uchicago.edu.
- ^ "Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ..." founders.archives.gov.
- ^ "James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". May 25, 2017. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.
- Michener, James A. (April 15, 2014). Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8041-5160-3 – via Google Books.
- ^ Senate, United States Congress (November 3, 1961). "Hearings". U.S. Government Printing Office – via Google Books.
- "Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820; [repr". Boston Book Company. January 1, 1820 – via Google Books.
- Nash, Darrel A. (May 1, 2018). A Perspective on How Our Government Was Built And Some Needed Changes. Dorrance Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4809-7915-4 – via Google Books.
- ^ "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All". FairVote. August 21, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2024.
- "Electoral College". The Charlatan | The Exposé of Politics & Style.
- ^ "Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.
- "Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ..." founders.archives.gov.
- "Founders Online: From James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". founders.archives.gov.
- "Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 17 August 1823". founders.archives.gov.
- "1788 Election For the First Term, 1789–1793". U. S. Electoral College. U.S. National Archives. Archived from the original on June 1, 2006. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
- Stephens, Frank Fletcher. The transitional period, 1788-1789, in the government of the United States, University of Missouri Press, 1909, pp. 67-74.
- "United States presidential election of 1789". Encyclopedia Britannica. September 19, 2013. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
- ^ Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, pp. 9–10.
- Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, pp. 10–11.
- "Batan v. McMaster, No. 19-1297 (4th Cir., 2020), p. 5" (PDF).
- Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p. 11.
- Gore, D'Angelo (December 23, 2016). "Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote". FactCheck.org.
- Apportionment by State (PDF), House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. Unlike composition in the College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. Later a run of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the Civil War.
- U.S. Constitution Transcript, held at the U.S. National Archives, viewed online on February 5, 2019.
- Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valelly, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0 p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.
- Leonard L. Richards, Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780–1860 (2001), referenced in a review at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online, viewed February 2, 2019.
- Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, pp. 464–65, Table 16.6, "Impact of the Three-fifths Clause on the Electoral College, 1792–1860". The continuing, uninterrupted northern free-soil majority margin in the Electoral College would have been significantly smaller had slaves been counter-factually counted as whole persons, but still the South would have been a minority in the Electoral College over these sixty-eight years.
- Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, pp. 454–55.
- Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause", Chapter 15 in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.
- Wills, Garry (2005). Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0618485376.
- Wilentz, Sean (April 4, 2019). "Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2020.
- Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, p. 464.
- Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, online February 9, 2019. See Article I, Section 9, and in Article IV, Section 2.
- First Census of the United States, Chapter III in "A Century of Population Growth from the first Census", volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia's...population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633. (p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p. 82.
- Amar, Akhil (November 10, 2016). "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists". Time.
- Tally of Electoral Votes for the 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801, National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.
- Foner, Eric (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W.W. Norton & Company. p. 16. ISBN 978-0393080827.
- Guelzo, Adam; Hulme, James (November 15, 2016). "In Defense of the Electoral College". The Washington Post.
- ^ Benner, Dave (November 15, 2016). "Blog: Cherry Picking James Madison". Abbeville Institute.
- The Fourteenth Amendment from America Book 9 (archived from the original on 2011-10-27)
- The selected papers of Thaddeus Stevens, v. 2, Stevens, Thaddeus, 1792–1868, Palmer, Beverly Wilson, 1936, Ochoa, Holly Byers, 1951, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Digital Research Library, 2011, pp. 135–36.
- Dovere, Edward-Isaac (September 9, 2020). "The Deadline That Could Hand Trump the Election". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 9, 2020.
- "U.S.C. Title 3 - THE PRESIDENT". 2011. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Zak, Dan (November 16, 2016). "The electoral college isn't a real place: But someone has to answer all the angry phone calls these days". Washington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2016.
- 3 U.S.C. § 15
- "What is the Electoral College?". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
- McCarthy, Devin. "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All". Fairvote. Archived from the original on March 10, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- ^ "The Electoral College – Maine and Nebraska". FairVote. Archived from the original on October 12, 2011. Retrieved November 16, 2011.
- "The Electoral College". National Conference of State Legislatures. November 11, 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2020.
- The present allotment of electors by state is shown in the Electoral vote distribution section.
- The number of electors allocated to each state is based on Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, subject to being reduced pursuant to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Table C2. Apportionment Population and Number of Seats in U.S. House of Representatives by State: 1910 to 2020 U.S. 2020 Census.
- Table 1. Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives by State U.S. 2020 Census.
- Distribution of Electoral Votes U.S. National Archives.
- "How is the president elected? Here is a basic guide to the electoral college system". Raw Story. October 25, 2016.
- Sabrina Eaton (October 29, 2004). "Brown learns he can't serve as Kerry elector, steps down" (PDF). Cleveland Plain Dealer (reprint at Edison Research). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2011. Retrieved January 3, 2008.
- Darrell J. Kozlowski (2010). Federalism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-1-60413-218-2.
- "Write-in Votes". electoral-vote.com. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
- "Planning to write in Paul Ryan or Bernie Sanders? It won't count in most states". The Washington Post. November 3, 2015.
- ^ "Maine & Nebraska". FairVote. Takoma Park, Maryland. Archived from the original on August 2, 2018. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
- "About the Electors". U.S. Electoral College. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
- "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270 to Win. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
- 3 U.S.C. § 1 A uniform national date for presidential elections was not set until 1845, although the Congress always had constitutional authority to do so. — Kimberling, William C. (1992) The Electoral College, p. 7
- "Electoral College Instructions to State Officials" (PDF). National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved January 22, 2014.
- District of Columbia Certificate of Ascertainment (archived from the original on 2006-03-05)
- "Twelfth Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- "Twenty-third Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- "U.S.C. § 7 : US Code – Section 7: Meeting and vote of electors". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- "U.S. Electoral College – For State Officials". National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on October 25, 2012. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
- "Congress meets to count electoral votes". NBC News. Associated Press. January 9, 2009. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
- Kuroda, Tadahisa (1994). The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic, 1787–1804. Greenwood. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-313-29151-7.
- Johnson, Linda S. (November 2, 2020). "Electors seldom go rogue in casting a state's votes for president". Retrieved November 9, 2020.
- "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
- Penrose, Drew (March 19, 2020). "Faithless Electors". Fair Vote. Archived from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2020.
- Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin, 2004. p. 514.
- Bomboy, Scott (December 19, 2016). "The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved March 17, 2020.
- Barrow, Bill (November 19, 2016). "Q&A: Electors almost always follow the vote in their state". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 20, 2016. Retrieved November 19, 2016.
- Williams, Pete (July 6, 2020). "Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College". NBC News. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
- Howe, Amy (July 6, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Court upholds 'faithless elector' laws". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
- Guzmán, Natasha (October 22, 2016). "How Are Electors Selected For The Electoral College? This Historic Election Process Decides The Winner". Bustle. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
- "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11–27, National Archives and Records Administration.
- ^ 3 U.S.C. § 15, Counting electoral votes in Congress.
- "EXPLAINER: How Congress will count Electoral College votes". AP NEWS. December 15, 2020. Retrieved December 19, 2020.
- David A. McKnight (1878). The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-8377-2446-1.
- Blakemore, Erin (January 5, 2021). "The 1876 election was the most divisive in U.S. history. Here's how Congress responded". National Geographic. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021.
- Williams, Brenna. "11 times electoral vote count was interrupted". CNN. Retrieved June 28, 2022.
- "The House just rejected an objection to Pennsylvania's electoral vote". CNN. January 6, 2021. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
- "Objections To Four Swing States' Electors Fall Flat After Senators Refuse To Participate; Hawley Forces Debate On Pennsylvania". forbes.com. January 7, 2020.
- "RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001". Ncseonline.org. Archived from the original on June 28, 2011. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Longley, Lawrence D.; Peirce, Neal R. (1999). "The Electoral College Primer 2000". Yale University Press. New Haven, CT: 13.
- "Election evolves into 'perfect' electoral storm". USA Today. December 12, 2000. Archived from the original on May 15, 2006. Retrieved June 8, 2016.
- "Senate Journal from 1837". Memory.loc.gov. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Rossiter 2003, p. 410.
- Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465, 591 U.S. ___, slip op. at 16–17 (2020)
- Shelly, Jacob D. (July 10, 2020). Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Electoral College: States May Restrict Faithless Electors (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 3. Retrieved July 10, 2023.
- ^ Neale 2020b, p. 4.
- Senate Journal 42(3), pp. 334–337.
- Senate Journal 42(3), p. 346.
- Donald, David Herbert (1996). Lincoln. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster. pp. 273–279. ISBN 978-0-684-82535-9.
- Holzer, Harold (2008). Lincoln President-elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter, 1860-1861. Simon & Schuster. p. 378. ISBN 978-0-7432-8947-4.
- Jeansonne, Glen (2012). The Life of Herbert Hoover: Fighting Quaker, 1928-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-1-137-34673-5. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
- "The Museum Exhibit Galleries, Gallery 5: The Logical Candidate, The President-Elect". West Branch, Iowa: Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
- Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 31–32.
- Picchi, Blaise (1998). The Five Weeks of Giuseppe Zangara : The Man Who Would Assassinate FDR. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers. pp. 19–20. ISBN 9780897334433. OCLC 38468505.
- Oliver, Willard; Marion, Nancy E. (2010). Killing the President: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief: Assassinations, Attempts, and Rumored Attempts on U.S. Commanders-in-Chief. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313364754.
- Hunsicker, A. (2007). The Fine Art of Executive Protection: Handbook for the Executive Protection Officer. Universal-Publishers. ISBN 9781581129847.
- Russo, Gus; Molton, Stephen (2010). Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-60819-247-2.
- Greene, Bob (October 24, 2010). "The man who did not kill JFK". CNN.
- "Dirty Bomb parts found in Slain man's home". February 10, 2009.
- Jeff Zeleny; Jim Rutenberg (December 5, 2009). "Threats Against Obama Spiked Early". The New York Times.
- Piazza, Jo; Meek, James Gordon; Kennedy, Helen (August 27, 2008). "Feds: Trio of would-be Obama assassins not much of "threat"". New York Daily News. Retrieved September 1, 2008.
- Date, Jack (October 27, 2008). "Feds thwart alleged Obama assassination plot". ABC News. Retrieved October 28, 2008.
- Herb, Kristen Holmes,Jeremy (November 23, 2020). "First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Winsor, Morgan; Pereira, Ivan; Mansell, William (January 7, 2021). "4 dead after US Capitol breached by pro-Trump mob during 'failed insurrection'". ABC News.
- ^ Neale 2020b, pp. 5–6.
- Rossiter 2003, p. 564.
- Amar, Akhil Reed (1995). "Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Death: Closing the Constitution's Succession Gap" (PDF). Arkansas Law Review. 48. University of Arkansas School of Law: 215–221. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
- Neale 2020b, pp. 2–3.
- ^ Neale 2020b, pp. 3–4.
- Rossiter 2003, p. 551.
- Neale 2020a, pp. 6–7.
- Rossiter 2003, p. 567.
- Neale 2020a, pp. 3–4.
- Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 25–26.
- Neale 2020a, p. 3.
- Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 66–67.
- Neale 2020a, pp. 25–26.
- Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 26–30.
- Neale 2020a, p. 4.
- Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 32–33, 64–65.
- Neale 2020a, pp. 4–6.
- Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 45–49.
- Continuity of Government Commission 2009, pp. 39, 47.
- Rossiter 2003, p. 560.
- Neale 2020a, pp. 1–7.
- "2020 Census Apportionment Results". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. April 26, 2021. Retrieved April 26, 2021. Each state's number of electoral votes is equal to its total congressional representation (its number of Representatives plus its two Senators).
- "Winners and losers from first release of 2020 census data". Associated Press. April 26, 2021.
- Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. pp. 254–56.
- Bush v. Gore, (Justice Stevens dissenting) (quote in second paragraph).
- Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 255.
- ^ Kolodny, Robin (1996). "The Several Elections of 1824". Congress & the Presidency. 23 (2): 139–64. doi:10.1080/07343469609507834. ISSN 0734-3469.
- "Election 101" (PDF). Princeton Press. Princeton University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 2, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- Black, Eric (October 14, 2012). "Our Electoral College system is weird – and not in a good way". MinnPost. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- ^ Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 266.
- "Legislative Action?, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, November 30, 2000". Pbs.org. Archived from the original on January 24, 2001. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Moore, John L., ed. (1985). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. p. 254.
- ^ "Fiddling with the Rules". Franklin & Marshall College. March 9, 2005. Archived from the original on September 3, 2006. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Henderson, Nia-Malika; Haines, Errin (January 25, 2013). "Republicans in Virginia, other states seeking electoral college changes". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
- "Election Reform" (PDF). Dos.state.pa.us. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 1, 2008. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- McNulty, Timothy (December 23, 2012). "Pennsylvania looks to alter state's electoral vote system". Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
- Sabato, Larry. "A more perfect Constitution" viewed November 22, 2014. (archived from the original on 2016-01-02).
- Levy, Robert A., Should we reform the Electoral College? Cato Institute, viewed November 22, 2014.
- "The Electoral College – Reform Options". Fairvote.org. Archived from the original on February 21, 2015. Retrieved August 14, 2014.
- Congressional Research Services Electoral College, p. 15, viewed November 22, 2014.
- "Gaming the Electoral College: Alternate Allocation Methods". www.270towin.com. Archived from the original on January 16, 2022. Retrieved July 31, 2022.
- "Distribution of Electoral Votes". National Archives. September 19, 2019. Retrieved November 1, 2024.
- Rembert, Elizabeth (April 3, 2024). "Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote. Is it a better system than winner-take-all?". Nebraska Public Media.
- "Methods of Choosing Presidential Electors". Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Schwartz, Maralee (April 7, 1991). "Nebraska's Vote Change". The Washington Post.
- Skelley, Geoffrey (November 20, 2014). "What Goes Around Comes Around?". Sabato's Crystal Ball. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- Egan, Paul (November 21, 2014). "Michigan split its electoral votes in 1892 election". Lansing State Journal. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- Congressional Quarterly Books, "Presidential Elections: 1789–1996", ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p. 10.
- Behrmann, Savannah (November 4, 2020). "Nebraska and Maine's district voting method could be crucial in this election. Here's why". USA Today.
- Cournoyer, Caroline (December 20, 2016). "In a First Since 1828, Maine Electors Split Their Vote". Governing.
- Tysver, Robynn (November 7, 2008). "Obama wins electoral vote in Nebraska". Omaha World Herald. Retrieved November 7, 2008.
- ^ Molai, Nabil (October 28, 2008). "Republicans Push to Change Electoral Vote System". KPTM Fox 42. Archived from the original on May 16, 2012. Retrieved November 4, 2008.
- Ortiz, Jean (January 7, 2010). "Bill targets Neb. ability to split electoral votes". Associated Press. Retrieved September 8, 2011.
- Kleeb, Jane (March 10, 2011). "Fail: Sen. McCoy's Partisan Electoral College Bill". Bold Nebraska. Archived from the original on May 31, 2012. Retrieved August 9, 2011.
- "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270toWin. Retrieved November 1, 2024.
- Seelye, Katharine Q. (September 19, 2011). "Pennsylvania Republicans Weigh Electoral Vote Changes". The New York Times.
- Weigel, David (September 13, 2011). "Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan". Slate.
- GOP Pennsylvania electoral vote plan might be out of steam (November 21, 2011). York Daily Record. (archived from the original on 2012-01-31)
- Gray, Kathleen (November 14, 2014). "Bill to change Michigan's electoral vote gets hearing". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- Jacobson, Louis (January 31, 2013). "The Ramifications of Changing the Electoral College". Governing Magazine. Archived from the original on November 29, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- Wilson, Reid (December 17, 2012). "The GOP's Electoral College Scheme". National Journal. Archived from the original on January 8, 2013. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
- "FairVote". FairVote. Archived from the original on February 21, 2015. Retrieved August 14, 2014.
- ^ Kiley, Jocelyn (September 25, 2024). "Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College". Pew Research Center.
- Bugh, Gary E. (2016). "Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System". In Bugh, Gary (ed.). Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge. pp. 5–18. ISBN 978-1-317-14527-1.
- Ziblatt, Daniel; Levitsky, Steven (September 5, 2023). "How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 20, 2023.
- Speel, Robert (November 15, 2016). "These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are All Wrong". Time. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
"Rural states get a slight boost from the 2 electoral votes awarded to states due to their 2 Senate seats
- FairVote.org. "Problems with the Electoral College – Fairvote". Archived from the original on August 14, 2016.
- ^ Daniller, Andrew (March 13, 2020). "A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote". Fact Tank: news in the numbers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 10, 2019.
- ^ Edwards III, George C. (2011). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (Second ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 1, 37, 61, 176–77, 193–94. ISBN 978-0-300-16649-1.
- Jonathan H. Adler. "Your candidate got more of the popular vote? Irrelevant". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2016.
- Ashe Schow. "Why the popular vote is a meaningless statistic". The Washington Examiner. Retrieved November 10, 2016.
- "Electoral College Mischief, The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2004". Opinionjournal.com. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- "Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote?". RealClearPolitics. October 22, 2012. Retrieved October 23, 2012.
- Pearson, Christopher; Richie, Rob; Johnson, Adam (November 3, 2005). "Who Picks the President?" (PDF). FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy. p. 7.
- "It's Time to End the Electoral College: Here's how". The Nation. November 7, 2012.
- ^ Collin, Katy (November 17, 2016). "The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it's going to get worse". Washington Post. Retrieved November 17, 2016.
- "Op-Chart: How Much Is Your Vote Worth? Op-Chart". November 2, 2008 – via The New York Times.
- Miroff, Bruce; Seidelman, Raymond; Swanstrom, Todd (2001). The Democratic Debate: An Introduction to American Politics (Third ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-05452-9.
- Banzhaf, John (1968). "One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College". Villanova Law Review. 13: 306.
- Livingston, Mark (April 2003). "Banzhaf Power Index". Department of Computer Science. University of North Carolina.
- Gelman, Andrew; Katz, Jonathan; Tuerlinckx, Francis (2002). "The Mathematics and Statistics of Voting Power" (PDF). Statistical Science. 17 (4): 420–35. doi:10.1214/ss/1049993201.
- ^ Nivola, Pietro (January 2005). "Thinking About Political Polarization". Brookings Policy Brief. 139 (139). Archived from the original on August 20, 2008.
- Koza, John; et al. (2006). "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" (PDF). p. xvii. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 13, 2006.
- ^ Amar, Akhil; Amar, Vikram (September 9, 2004). "The Electoral College Votes Against Equality". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on April 15, 2010.
- Katrina vanden Heuvel (November 7, 2012). "It's Time to End the Electoral College". The Nation. Retrieved November 8, 2012.
Electoral college defenders offer a range of arguments, from the openly anti-democratic (direct election equals mob rule), to the nostalgic (we've always done it this way), to the opportunistic (your little state will get ignored! More vote-counting means more controversies! The Electoral College protects hurricane victims!). But none of those arguments overcome this one: One person, one vote.
- "How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed the African American Vote for Generations". history.com. May 13, 2021.
- Gelman, Andrew; Kremp, Pierre-Antoine (November 22, 2016). "The Electoral College magnifies the power of white voters". Vox. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
- Hoffman, Matthew M. (1996). "The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College". The Yale Law Journal. 105 (4): 935–1021. doi:10.2307/797244. JSTOR 797244.
- Torruella, Juan R. (1985), The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal, University of Puerto Rico Press, ISBN 0-8477-3031-X
- José D. Román. "Puerto Rico and a Constitutional Right to vote". University of Dayton. Retrieved October 2, 2007. (excerpted from: José D. Román, "Trying to Fit an Oval Shaped Island into a Square Constitution: Arguments for Puerto Rican Statehood", 29 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1681–1713, 1697–1713 (April 2002) (316 Footnotes Omitted)).
- "Guam Legislature Moves General Election Presidential Vote to the September Primary". Ballot-Access.org. July 10, 2008. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
- "In Guam, 'Non-Binding Straw Poll' Gives Obama A Commanding Win". NPR. November 12, 2012. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
- Curry, Tom (May 28, 2008). "Nominating, but not voting for president". NBC News. Retrieved September 5, 2019.
- Helgesen, Elise (March 19, 2012). "Puerto Rico and Other Territories Vote in Primaries, But Not in General Election". Fair Vote. Retrieved September 7, 2019.
- Jerry Fresia (February 28, 2006). "Third Parties?". Zmag.org. Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- ^ Kimberling, William C. (May 1992). "Opinion: The Electoral College" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 12, 2001. Retrieved January 3, 2008.
- Sabato, Larry (2007). A More Perfect Constitution (First U.S. ed.). Walker Publishing Company. pp. 151–164. ISBN 978-0-8027-1621-7. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
- Williams, Norman R. (2012). "Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional". BYU Law Review. 2012 (5). J. Reuben Clark Law School: 1539–1570. Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved October 14, 2020.
- Rossiter 2003, p. 411.
- Neale, Thomas H.; Nolan, Andrew (October 28, 2019). The National Popular Vote (NPV) Initiative: Direct Election of the President by Interstate Compact (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 8, 2020.
- Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 7". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point (First ed.). New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
- For a more detailed account of this proposal read The Politics of Electoral College Reform by Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun (1972).
- 1968 Electoral College Results, National Archives and Records Administration.
- "Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting". The New York Times. April 30, 1969. p. 21.
- "House Unit Votes To Drop Electors". The New York Times. April 30, 1969. p. 1.
- "Direct Election of President Is Gaining in the House". The New York Times. September 12, 1969. p. 12.
- "House Approves Direct Election of The President". The New York Times. September 19, 1969. p. 1.
- "Nixon Comes Out For Direct Vote On Presidency". The New York Times. October 1, 1969. p. 1.
- "A Survey Finds 30 Legislatures Favor Direct Vote For President". The New York Times. October 8, 1969. p. 1.
- Weaver, Warren (April 24, 1970). "Senate Unit Asks Popular Election of the President". The New York Times. p. 1.
- "Bayh Calls for Nixon's Support As Senate Gets Electoral Plan". The New York Times. August 15, 1970. p. 11.
- ^ Weaver, Warren (September 18, 1970). "Senate Refuses To Halt Debate On Direct Voting". The New York Times. p. 1.
- "Senate Debating Direct Election". The New York Times. September 9, 1970. p. 10.
- The Senate in 1975 reduced the required vote for cloture from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). See United States Senate website.
- "Senate Puts Off Direct Vote Plan". The New York Times. September 30, 1970. p. 1.
- Jimmy Carter Letter to Congress, Jimmy Carter: "Election reform Message to the Congress", Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
- ^ "Carter Proposes End Of Electoral College In Presidential Votes", The New York Times, March 23, 1977, pp. 1, 18.
- "Carter v. The Electoral College", Chicago Tribune, March 24, 1977, Section 3, p. 2.
- "Letters". The New York Times. March 15, 1979. Retrieved August 18, 2017.
- Morton, Victor (January 3, 2019). "Rep. Steve Cohen introduces constitutional amendment to abolish Electoral College". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on July 7, 2019. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
- Morton, Victor (January 3, 2019). "Why Democrats Want to Abolish the Electoral College—and Republicans Want to Keep It". The Washington Times. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
- Cohen, Steve (January 3, 2019). "Text – H.J.Res. 7 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice president of the United States".
- Merkley, Jeff (March 28, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 16 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice President of the United States".
- Schatz, Brian (April 2, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 17 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States".
- ^ Susan Sun Numamaker (July 9, 2020). "What Is National Popular Vote Bill/National Popular Vote Interstate Compact & Why Is It Important". Windemere Sun. Retrieved July 14, 2020.
- "Text of the compact" (PDF). National Popular Vote.
- Neale, Thomas H. Electoral College Reform Congressional Research Service pp. 21–22, viewed November 23, 2014.
- Fadem, Barry (July 14, 2020). "Supreme Court's "faithless electors" decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on July 17, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
- Litt, David (July 7, 2020). "The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College. It's Up to Us to End It". Time. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
After all, the same constitutional principles that allow a state to bind its electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote should allow it to bind its electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. This means that if states that combine to hold a majority of electoral votes all agree to support the popular-vote winner, they can do an end-run around the Electoral College. America would still have its clumsy two-step process for presidential elections. But the people's choice and the electors' choice would be guaranteed to match up every time.
- ^ "Equal Votes". Equal Citizens. Retrieved December 31, 2020.
Works cited
- Beeman, Richard (2010). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House. ISBN 9780812976847.
- Neale, Thomas H. (October 9, 2020). Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
- Neale, Thomas H. (July 14, 2020). Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 19, 2023.
- Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency (PDF) (Report). Continuity of Government Commission. June 2009. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
- Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (PDF) (Report). U.S. Government Publishing Office. December 22, 2022. Retrieved July 7, 2023.
- Report on the Electoral Count Act of 1887: Proposals for Reform (PDF) (Report). United States House Committee on House Administration. 2022. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 18, 2023. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume II of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. July 25, 2019. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 2: Russia's Use of Social Media with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. October 8, 2019. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. August 18, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
- Rossiter, Clinton, ed. (2003). The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics. ISBN 9780451528810.
- Rybicki, Elizabeth; Whitaker, L. Paige (December 8, 2020). Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
- "Third Session of the 42nd Congress". United States Senate Journal. 68. Library of Congress: 334–346. February 12, 1873. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
Further reading
- Eric Foner, "The Corrupt Bargain" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151; and Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, St Martin's Press, 2020, 304 pp., ISBN 978-1250221971), London Review of Books, vol. 42, no. 10 (May 21, 2020), pp. 3, 5–6. Foner concludes (p. 6): "Rooted in distrust of ordinary citizens and, like so many other features of American life, in the institution of slavery, the electoral college is a relic of a past the United States should have abandoned long ago."
- Michael Kazin, "The Creaky Old System: Is the real threat to American democracy one of its own institutions?" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151), The Nation, vol. 311, no. 7 (October 5/12, 2020), pp. 42–44. Kazin writes: "James Madison sought to replace with a national popular vote . e endure with the most ridiculous system for producing our head of state and government ." (p. 44.)
- Erikson, Robert S.; Sigman, Karl; Yao, Linan (2020). "Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (45): 27940–944. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11727940E. doi:10.1073/pnas.2013581117. PMC 7668185. PMID 33106408.
- George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, second ed., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0300166491.
External links
- The Electoral College by the National Conference of State Legislatures
- The Electoral College by the National Archives and Records Administration
| United States presidential elections | |
|---|---|
| Elections by year |
|
| Elections by state |
|
| Primaries and caucuses | |
| Nominating conventions | |
| Electoral College and popular vote | |
| Related | |
| Constitution of the United States | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Articles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Amendments |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Formation |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Clauses |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interpretation |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Signatories |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Related | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Display and legacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||