Ask Mike: What’s the Electoral College?
Hey Guys,
Presidential elections raise far more questions than they answer. Some of my biggest questions have to do with the Electoral College. Why do we use it? What are the benefits? How did it get started?
I found an in-depth history at Federal Election Commission’s official site. The 20-page article answers all those questions and more. America’s founding fathers considered several different methods for electing a president. In one scenario, Congress would have chosen the commander-in-chief (yikes!). Eventually, the electoral college was chosen.
According to the Federal Archives, the country’s fathers didn’t just come up with the system out of the blue. They “appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire.” The term “electoral college” was first written into Federal law in 1845. Today the term appears in “3 U.S.C. section 4″ in the U.S. Constitution.
The United States went with the system for several reasons. When the U.S. first came to be, citizens were highly suspicious of a central national government. Additionally, national campaigns were thought to be impractical due to the large amount of land and non-existent transportation system.
Today, the arguments for and against the system have changed. Those who support the Electoral College believe that it “contributes to the political stability of a nation by encouraging a two-party system” and it requires a “distribution of popular support to be elected president.”
Folks who are against the system believe that it may depress voter turnout. Some people feel that if they live in a state in which one party has an overwhelming majority, their votes won’t count. Additionally, it is argued that the Electoral College can sometimes fail to “reflect the national popular will.”
Despite the controversy, it would require a Constitutional amendment to change the system. According to the Archives, “700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College” and we still have it. In other words, if the past is any indication, the E.C. ain’t going anywhere.
Still, for the sake of argument, let’s say that we could start over. How would you elect the next president? A simple popular vote? Let Congress choose? Have several presidents who share the power? Leave a comment and share your ideas below!
Thanks for reading,
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Rating:
(2 votes, average: 3.00) - Permalink
- Comments (49)
Loading ...
(average 4.75)
Subscribe
The Electoral College should have been disbanded a long time ago. Clearly, it has outlived its usefulness.
I believe we should vote direct on election day for whatever candidate we want no matter how many candidates there are. When the voting is over the one with the most votes is our new President.
You did not answer the question.
I don’t think it’s the absolute best solution but I’d rather not have the most populist states have the say so either! Folks on the Right & Left Coast seem to think they have all the answers and leave the rest of the Country out of the equations.
Very well done. Good information without pain and very well written. Thanks.
A simple popular vote only seems fair.
I do know that one reason the Founding Fathers decided on an Electoral College was to ensure the States had more say and power in the presidential election. When they got rid of the Articles of Confederation, which gave much power to individual states, they had to compromise with the Constitution to appease enough states to vote for it.
Yes, I’d go with the popular vote, otherwise people’s true feelings (expressed by votes) about who should be president don’t really have any value if the other party’s candidate is elected.
Even though “700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College” it won’t happen, because congress is stuck in a rut, just like our laws are out dated and stuck in a rut and need a new over haul so do congress. But, I also agree most popular vote, just like with any thing else we vote on.
I think it’s important to remember that we have an Electoral College for much the same reason as each State in the Union has two Senators regardless of size and population. It prevents the larger and more heavily populated states from completely dominating the political discourse of the nation thus rendering small and even medium size states irrelevant. Without the Electoral College the only places important in a national campaign would be California, New York, Texas and Illinois(and perhaps Florida,Ohio and Michigan).
So, what is the Electoral College?
something tells me if we started again it would eventually evolve back in to the system we have now.
I would go with just a simple popular vote. I just don’t understand why the popular vote doesn’t win anyway. Who cares what the electoral college things. They are wrong a lot of the time anyway.
The reality is that without the electoral college giving at least some weight to all states major party candidates will only campaign in a half dozen large states with high populations and ignore everyone else. Imagine living in a state with 864,764 (according to 2007 Census numbers) inhabitants like Delaware. Is a Presidential candidates going to visit your area or listen to your concerns or are they going to spend all their time in California (36,553,215
), Texas (23,904,380), and New York (19,297,729)?
The problem is that most of us consider democracy a synonym for freedom when that isn’t necessarily the case. The old saying is that under a democracy, “if 51% of the population what to have sex with your wife, your wife will be very busy tonight.”
Democracy can lead to freedom, such as the freedom to live without unsafe foods produced by a minority of businesses. But that’s not always the case. This is why America is technically called a “democratic republic” or a “constitutional republic” – the Constitution and Bill of Rights place limits on democracy to guarantee the freedoms we have.
The Founders always wanted a balance between democracy and dictatorship to guarantee these freedoms. Before the 17th Amendment in 1913, the people did not vote for senators – the states selected them to represent the state, NOT the people, while the House of Representatives was designed to give people a say.
The biggest reason for the electoral college was to give the states, including less-populated areas, a say in the voting process. This is a big problem here in Pennsylvania – the entire state is Republican, but the few major cities give Pennsylvania the Democratic vote every time. (Liberalism is strongest in major cities – is that the REAL reason why liberal Democrats are against the Electoral College?)
In our culture the word “democracy” is such an engrained dogma that most people don’t know what America would be like if it was too democratic. That is why “America is not a democracy” and never should be.
Having everyone actually vote for who they choose, and having that vote counted just as much as anyone else’s, and having the president chosen by the amount of individual votes he received, is absolute heresy.
I for one think that the system is perfect. Having my vote not count because more people in my particular state voted differently and turned the whole state either red or blue, and having my state have no overall effect anyway because of the amount of play points it’s worth makes SO much more sense and makes me feel as if I have a voice in this country.
Read: Sacrcasm.
I was wondering how do you go about making your avatar as large as yours, Mike. Or is your avatar that size only when you blog?
The Electoral College is why the helll a lot of folks don’t vote! It takes from the idea of government for the people and by the people. A popular vote determining who wins the Presidency is !00% by the people. It’s just a loophole in the system so that unseen forces can put whoever the helll they want in office. The framers of the Constitution fought hard to get from under British control back in the 1700’s, then turned around and set up this government in a way that shows distrust of American people’s thinking or ability to pick their Commander in Chief.
there is a significant part of history that you neglect. slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. if there were a direct election, in which slaves could not vote, then the southern states would have lost that advantage. by having the electoral college in between, the southern states votes enjoyed that benefit in vote counting.
it’s not by accident that there were so many early presidents from southern states.
i might also note that my history book neglected to mention this either. it said that it was thought that “the people” were thought of as “not smart enough” to be trusted with a direct election. (i suppose one could ask whether that’s not still true, but in any case, the electoral college is not helping greatly.)
The primary purpose of the federal government is to oversee the interaction between the United states and to present a United front in dealing with foreign diplomacy. The electoral college is ideal and perfect for this means… there’s a reason why the constitution not only establishes the electoral college, but gives each state complete oversight as to how each state wishes to assign its electorate vote. The fact that any of us get a direct vote for president is indeed not granted by the U.S. Constitution but rather your state’s constituion. That’s why Nebraska divides theirs by distract and everyone else is winner takes all. If your party is a minority in your state, I suggest that you lobby for your state to switch Nebraska’s method of assigning its elecorates… then urban areas will predominately go to Democrats, while rural areas will fall Republican. Or perhaps some other form of assigning the electorates. Bottomline, you as an individual do not have a basic voting right. It is a privaledge granted by the state you live in. When you are voting, you are voting for a representative of your state that will meet with electors from other states who will decide who is president. Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution does not mandate a popular election. The United States is simply a Republic. It is each state that determines if it is a democratic Republic. So people that clamour about the inefficiencies of the Electoral College are not complete enlightened to system of government we truly belong to, they have erroneously been taught that we are a Democracy–subject to every flight of fancy of the populous majority. Rather we are a Republic–based on an established set of principles and laws where representatives are chosen to maintain and guard those principles from generation to generation.
The electoral cannot be done away with because it strips away State sovereignty and undermines a major underpinning of our Republic.
A lot of people say the Pledge of Allegience, but not too many listen to the words… i.e. “to the Republic for which it stands” not “to the Democracy…”
Lastly, the general populous is ignorant to understanding what the results of an election mean and the mathematics and statistics behind it. The 2000 election was the perfect example… yes, Gore “won the popular vote” but loss the election; well, not really. you see, with over 105 Million votes, the victory of Al Gore by a mere 1/2 million votes is statistically insignificant. Statistically it is a virtual tie. Therefore, a tiebreaker was needed and more sovereign States voted for Bush. So Bush was ELECTED President.
To clarify just how small a margin the 2000 election was… did you know more Americans voted for Neither of the leading candidates than the margin of Al Gores margin over Bush in the popular vote: 7.2 Million for Other to a mere 500,000 Gore over Bush.
The electoral college is a perfect system. It awards the popluar vote the victory except when the margin becomes statistically insignificant to determine whereby it then defaults to State sovereignty as a tie-breaker.
Now the one thing that is broken, it is not the electoral college, but rather State’s assignment of the Electors where more than two party’s are material factors. Perot in ‘92, Nader in 2000. States should devise a method for not disenfranchising these voter who vote for a candidate that turns out to not have a snowballs chance to win… i.e. if the margin of victory in a state is less than the votes for “other” candidates, then a vote-off including only the top two vote-getters. States like Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, etc.–that tend to run 50-50–should especially adopt a tie-breaking procedure for these circumstances.
Electoral College fine.
Multi-parties in a two-party system bad.
Biggest problem of the whole ordeal, public education and voter competence. But the US Constitution clearly, and rightfully so, protects discrimination in the right to vote.
we are not a democracy, we are a republic. a democracy would go with the popular vote. a republic would go with the electoral college. checks and balances fellow citizens.
Just so you know Here in Oklahoma we just lost a congressional seat due to our population being adjusted (in fact we lost this seat in 2002) from the 2000 census.
While we now just have 7 electoral votes (instead of the previous
we tend here in Oklahoma and most of the states around us to be conservative in our national elections and more relaxed in our local state elections which favor the liberal democrat. In fact often we don’t have state opposition to Democrats running in local elections and from our history here I understand it but do not subscribe to it. The electoral College is the best idea of not allowing the states with the largest populations rule over the states with less population. What works in NY and CA with Gays and pro choice will not be appreciated to be forced down our backs here in Oklahoma. So to keep it fair keeping the college is the best insurance we have as long as the college does the right thing and votes with the majority in the state they represent.
To those of you who actually think that each state has the same number of Electoral votes and therefore allows states with less population to have as much of an impact on the election as states with more population, you are incorrect in your thinking. Here is how the number of electoral votes per state is actually determined:
How Many Votes do States Get?
Each State is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives. The number of electors for a State is based on the number of members in the House of Representatives who represent the State, plus two for the State’s Senators. A State’s Congressional delegation is determined by the State’s population.
The number of people in each State is determined by the Federal census, which is taken every ten years and includes a count of every State’s population.
Taken from this web site:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html
If you click on the following link, you can see exactly how many electoral votes your particular state was granted in the 2004 election:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html
Personally, I do feel that it should be a popular vote only. I feel my vote doesn’t really even count when it comes to voting for the President, although I do realize that my vote counts when voting for my state congress and in local issues.
Actually a popular vote would only require a tie breaker IF the same number of people voted for the same person. Just because it was a “virtual dead heat” doesn’t mean there wasn’t someone getting more votes. Anyway what is the issue with the Electoral College? People act like the person who wins the popular vote tends to lose. Look through the nation’s history, that almost never happens. Yes it has happened, but it is very rare.
A popular vote would be disastrous for the country. Most citizens aren’t informed enough to make a good decision. In order to elect a president by popular vote, people would need to be examined, for lack of a better word, to ensure that they aren’t biased, by race, religion, sex, or a number of other factors. Only then would electing a president by popular vote be a plausible decision.
The electoral system, although flawed, is possibly the closest we can come to such a thing. After all, ensuring qualified people vote would be a financial burden on the country and an inconvenience for the public.
Even though it is a long shot, I think a selection of qualified citizen voters would be the best way to elect a president.
I believe in the popular vote. Now we have super delegates…Another way to confuse the voters?
I like the idea of the popular vote by the people. We’ve seen how the Electoral College can go against what the people really want.
I agree that a simple popular vote is all that is required. I just hope that we can have an honest election every time. I wouldn’t want to see after the election that illegal immigrant votes or those names in the cemetery elected the new president.
I wrote an essay on the electoral college in eighth grade, and I was against the electoral college. The electoral college used to be necessary to prevent voters from just voting for a favorite son from their own states, but now, technology has developed, so voters now have better ways to learn about candidates. Election of the president via the electoral college isn’t really fair, because a candidate can win an election without getting a single vote from 38 states and the District of Columbia as long as they win the electoral votes from just 11 of the 12 states greater in population. Since that is the case, why should candidates waste their time campaigning in smaller states? The electoral college method should be replaced with direct popular vote.
Ok, so if we tossed out the Electoral College, campaigns would just take place in the big states like California, Texas, New York, etc. and leave out small states.
What’s so different about the way we do it now? The majority of campaigns take place in “swing states” and leave places like California, Texas, New York, etc. out to dry.
If anything, the powers that be want to keep this method because it helps the GOP remain in power, or always an inch away from power. All those red state values would become meaningless and we’d rely on the people of America to elect our leader, not some archaic formula.
It just makes little sense in modern times. Transportation is not an issue, and our stately voices are already heard with Senators. The President is an entirely different entity and pertains to the NATION, not to STATES (that’s what governors are for).
The system needs to be overhauled or we continue to risk losing voters, especially in stone-cold Red or Blue states. Red votes for Red candidates are USELESS in a Blue state, and likewise with Blue votes in Red States. Sure, we could just toss those votes to a third-party to make sure our vote isn’t a complete waste, but that also destroys the integrity of a Presidential vote.
But mostly, there isn’t any balance in the EC. There are more “red states” than “blues”, and, if like in 2000, if this year the winner of the popular vote doesn’t also win the White House, things NEED to change.
Let Congress choose.
Still wondering what the electoral college is.
The Electorl College is fundamentally a good idea. However the distribution of it’s votes is not right. A large and varied state like CA goes democrat like clokcwork while large areas like SD County (military) and the central valley (farming) are far more republican in their positions. Should the entire state’s votes go to one man? I think not.
The idea of rolling up the votes to reflect an area and a population makes sense. Otherwise by popular vote the liberals and progressives in large municipalities would rule like kings. By spreading out the votes the things that matter most in Iowa, Wyoming, Texas, CA, NY, etc. are adressed on some level. Even if it isn’t perfect.
You’ve got to break up the votes though so that the large groupings can go away and each “county” or area can send their vote to the candidate they feel will best represent them. This addresses all points (votes that don’t count, spreading of power to all states, regionalization, decentralization).
-ET
I thought the electoral college was to provide a sober 2nd. thought to prevent an irrational person from becoming president.
Very good asrticvle – informtive, consise and presents a good overview of the election processes. Many of the blogs were intellegent as well.
Each State is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives. The number of electors for a State is based on the number of members in the House of Representatives who represent the State, plus two for the State’s Senators. A State’s Congressional delegation is determined by the State’s population.
Based on the above why would we not make it the senators’ and congressmen’s jobs to simply vote for the president as their jurisdiction dictates? If the area that a congressman represents goes dem or rep he votes accordingly. Then the senators do so on a larger level thsi way a state like CA goes dem mostly but the republican population still sends backing to their choice if they out populate the dems in a given congressman’s area. seems simple. it works the other way in smaller more rural states. A state like Iowa might want to send a few votes to neighboring Barack especially in Debuque or Cedar Rapids.
Simple popular vote seems “fair”, but I don’t want every average stupid American voting. Granted the electoral college tends to stay in party lines way too often, strict popular vote is not the answer.
You get my vote for ***Best Answer **** Most complete and thorough answer I’ve ever heard from any textbook or instructor in American History, Government, Civics, or outside the classroom. Yet, one of your commentors does have a good point, also. This is to say that you haven’t yet told us–WHAT is the “electoral college”. How are the people chosen who are in it? Are they required to vote according to what their area region decides? Or free to vote their conscience? Is it forever to be some big riddle that we the “little” people are forever in ignorance of?
the electoral college should have been replaced centuries ago. i feel that a popular vote is the best way to go.
This and some past election fully demonstrate why the electoral college is MORE important than EVER before!
First this is a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY…lets get that straight.
The electoral college helps preserve the republic by having a better vote for the Presidential office, as a balance of power.
Look at this election…with organized efforts (fraudulent) via ACORN and other groups, along with a vast array of socialist leaning indoctrinated students on the west coast….etc etc. do we really want fanatics having such an opportunity through a popular vote!
Look at nations with a popular vote…they are poorly run and inefficient.
I am all for keeping the Electoral College to help save our REPUBLIC.
every single american citizen has earned the right to vote for the one of there choosing , who are we to call anybody an Idiot? the EC needs to be eliminated and populare vote needs to be the answer. PERIOD.
every other election is decided that way.Why is this one NOT?????
As a political scientist, I’ll try to give my two cents here…
The Electoral College is a political institution established by Constitution. Keep in mind that during this time there was tension between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists as to how much power the states should be granted. A compromise was made that citizens vote for electors and those electors constitute the Electoral College. Each state gets at least 3 electors and more depending on the population of the state. The Electoral College therefore, has 538 electors in all and 270 is needed to win the presidency. Let’s get into the reasons why the Electoral College was created.
The forefathers created the Electoral College in order to have an electoral mechanism in which the most qualified candidate would be selected and not necessarily the most popular one. Popular election was seen as impractical. The size of the country and the state of its communication and transportation at the time would preclude holding and effectively monitoring a national campaign. There have been cases in U.S. history in which a candidate would win the popular vote but lose the elections due to not winning the Electoral College. Arguably this has produced favorable results but it is easy to argue the opposite. Of course the most recent case of this happening was in the 2000 elections which brought more attention to the Electoral College and created a mass revival of the debate as to whether the Electoral College should be abolished or not.
An argument against keeping the Electoral College is simply, that it can go against what the public wants. Fairness also comes into question because it gives an advantage to bigger states because of their larger population and also an advantage to smaller states due to overrepresentation (no matter how small, a state automatically gets 3 electors). States that are neither large or small have a lesser advantage. Another argument against having the Electoral College is the fact that it has a bias lean to it. Keep in mind that during the time of the forefathers, parties did not exist. They saw it as divisive and were against it by all means so they created it with the assumption that the Electoral College would be neutral. As parties developed later on, the Electoral College was no longer always neutral. The Electoral College also discourages third parties or minor parties and they acquire lack of representation as the Electoral College operates on a winner take all system..
An argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College is as follows: The forefathers created it with the intentions of having the most qualified candidate as president. For example, almost all politicians at the time knew George Washington was the most qualified one to become president. The forefathers wanted to ensure that within this brand new and fragile country, it was direly important to have the most qualifed one as president (Washington) and not the most popular one (i.e. the one with the more celebrity status). With that said, an argument is that the American population in general may still not be knowledgeable enough, do not take the time, or do not have the time enough to educate themselves on the candidates positions and therefore, still may not choose the most qualified one. Honestly, how many people have actually read the records of all the candidates prior to the 2008 primary elections instead of relying on reporters to pick and choose what is said to the public? Another argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College is counter to the earlier argument against keeping the Electoral College and that is that it discourages third parties. Why would this be a good thing? Because a way to get votes in a multi party system is to focus more on the minority party which is not central to the general will. In two party systems, minority will can either be adopted or not into the party foundation depending if it is seen as important issue within the country. With that said, two party systems equate to a more centrist society. Also multiparty systems gives way for extreme parties to gain more of a foothold in politics which would otherwise, not be adopted into a platform of the two parties in a two party system.
So should the Electoral College be abolished or not? I guess that is a matter of personal opinion.
So the Electoral College (E.C.) ultimately votes for our president. Okay… But what does the E.C. do if the majority of regular citizens, let’s say for simplicity, 150,000,000 American adults (age 18 and older) vote during a presidential election (2008 for example).
Candidate A receives 100,000,000 of those votes but he only has a high school education and likes to party but he has a grasp on how the Nation should be managed and how it should use diplomacy in its foreign affairs. The people love him.
Candidate B receives 50,000,000 of those votes but he has a masters degree from a state university, likes to go to bed before Leno or Letterman, and he has an idea of how the Nation should be managed and is not very strong in exerting diplomacy in its foreign affairs. The people like him.
Now, the E.C. would be charged with voting for and electing the next president. Clearly, Candidate A won the popular vote and is better qualified as a manager but because he lacks a degree the E.C. would probably elect Candidate B as president, yes?
And this is why I am against the E.C. deciding who our next president will be in this election and future elections. They will only elect whom they believe will be the “right” person (Candidate B) to be president of the country even though the people clearly stated they wanted the Candidate A as their president.
The E.C. should be abolished and replace with the popular vote. If there is a mathematical tie, only then should we allow the full Congress decide the issue on our behalf. The statistical tie is b.s. because statistics can be manipulated once another person sees and handles that original data. Statistics is an art and is not absolute whereas mathematics is a science and is absolute.
The E.C. is a joke n should be abolished, replace it with popular vote that actually has some meaning. Then n only then will every vote count.
It is clear our public education system is failing us when most of the population doesn’t even understand our electoral system, doesn’t understand the reasons our Founding Fathers fought so hard & sacraficed to form this nation, doesn’t understand our economic system and doesn’t understand a whole host of other very basic & pertinent issues relating to our very existence.
I see some making comments about our electoral system being outdated or something to those affects. This is so far from reality. First off, it is imperative to understand why or nation was founded and the concerns our Founding Fathers had. Our nation is not a pure democracy, we are a union of states held together by a small central government (or at least that was the intent). We are a democratic republic following a federalist type of government. Again, this is so basic yet most people don’t understand it. In our nation the states hold most of the power and the states elect the President. This grants power to each of the states and helps prevent a single state or handful of states to dictate policy for the entire nation.
I think people need to educate themselves more on this topic as there is little intelligent conversation about it happening. This is an important topic and we are failing ourselves and the future of our nation when we do not educate future generations on it.
God Bless America
Wow, some people still don’t have a clue how the Electoral College works.
Each candidate’s party nominates a slate of electors for their party. If their candidate wins the highest number of votes in their state, that slate of electors is chosen to represent their state in the state capital in mid-December to officially cast their ballots. (The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which gives two votes to whoever wins the state and one to whoever wins each congressional district.)
The system was designed to produce a clear-cut winner, and has worked very well for the previous 55 Presidential elections. It balances the small states and the larger states, requiring candidates to campaign in all portions of the country.
And it’s not going to change anytime soon. Any state with less than 8 electoral votes would be stupid to vote for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC, which would cede more power to California.
One man (OK, person!), one vote
In order to enfranchise (we) the people in a fairer and more just system, our electoral system would be considerably improved if it reflected a one person = one vote democracy.
Under the current electoral college system, even if a nominee receives a significant majority of the popular vote, that person may not be President unless 270 electoral college votes are received, and conversely, a President might be (and has been) elected with a minority of the popular vote – very arguably, a rather bizarre, unjust and unfair system.
Moreover, to better ensure the voice of independent members, and to help reduce the influence of big money lobbyists, the election of congressional representatives should be carried out as proportional representation, a system which has considerably increased the influence of democracy, and reduced large lobbyist interests in a number of other countries.
Lastly, it would be very interesting to undertake a review with the intention of determining how much taxpayer money could be saved if an entire layer of government – the state layer – were to be removed. Certainly, we might then have a chance at creating fairer and cheaper legal, health and education systems.
I’m so tired of the Electoral College and the two party system. Once this election is over, I intend to devote a lot of my time and energy to efforts to abolish both. When did the U.S. become a bunch of red and blue states? How come my vote (as a Californian) hasn’t counted in 30 years? Nobody campaigns in California, New York, Texas, Illinois … those states are already decided. Why is it that the most important voters are in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and Indiana? Seems a bit backwards, doesn’t it?
See my “Know More” blog at http://www.jeremygoodell.com.