What are the Origins of the Electoral College?
When the United States was developing its government in the late 18th century, there were a number of suggestions for how to elect the President. The founders feared that direct popular vote would result in candidates from the larger states having an undue advantage over candidates from the smaller states. They were also concerned about whether any candidate could capture enough of the popular vote to justify governing the entire country. As a result, the Constitutional Convention considered whether Congress should select the President. That too was rejected because some felt it would foster corruption and feared that the independence of the office would be lost, since the President (or those who would be President) would owe his election to the members of Congress. There was a sense that election by Congress would result in unnecessary divisions in Congress and upset the balance of power between the executive and the legislature.
Another suggestion was to have the State legislatures select the President. This was rejected because of a fear that the President would then be tied too directly to the interests of state legislatures, with a resulting lack of federal power.
The Electoral College emerged as the consensus choice.
What is the Electoral College Process?
The Electoral College is embodied in the Constitution. Each state has a number of “electors” equal to the number of representatives and senators that state has. Voters in each state select that state’s electors by voting for their preferred Presidential candidate. In doing so, the voter actually selects an elector who has pledged to vote for the voter’s preferred Presidential candidate. The following December, each chosen elector casts two votes, one for President and one for Vice President.1 To be elected President, a candidate needs 270 of the 538 available electoral votes.
Theoretically, each elector may vote for the candidate the elector prefers, but in practice most states follow a “winner-take-all” system under which all electors from a state vote for the candidate who won the state’s popular vote. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia currently follow the “winner-take-all” system. Maine and Nebraska both select two of their electors by statewide popular vote, with their remaining electors chosen by popular vote in each congressional district.
Each state has its own method for choosing the candidates to become its electors. In general, elector candidates are nominated by their political parties at state party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each state. There are no set requirements for electors; often they are chosen in recognition of service to the political party. Thus, electors are often state officials, party leaders, or people with a personal or political affiliation with a presidential candidate.
In 2008, Pennsylvania has 21 electors. Click here to see how many electors come from each state and the District of Columbia (D.C.). (Please note: because the number of electors is based, in part, on the number of representatives in each state, and the number of representatives fluctuates with a state's population, the number of electors in each state can also vary based on shifting population.)
What are the Arguments in Support of the Electoral College?
The Electoral College is based on the idea that the nation is made up of several states rather than being a single political entity. Because victory is not based on a national popular vote, candidates must gain widespread popular support; they cannot concentrate their campaign efforts only in highly populated areas while essentially ignoring others. Thus, each candidate is forced to seek support in many states.
Another argument for the Electoral College is that it helps maintain the federal character of the nation. It also provides stability by encouraging the two party system; because electors cast their votes based on the popular vote in their states, third parties usually do not manage to receive electoral votes.
Proponents also argue that the College does not allow control by regional minorities. The practice of “winner-takes-all” gives candidates an incentive to address a wide variety of interests and minority groups. Moreover, the Electoral College process efficiently solves problems which may arise during an election. For example, if a candidate unexpectedly dies, it is easier for the Electoral College to choose a replacement than to hold another general election. Also, if a recount of votes is necessary (as was the case in the 2000 Presidential election), only the votes in the states where there are discrepancies need to be recounted as opposed to holding a recount of the entire national vote.
Finally, since electoral votes are allocated in the same way regardless of voter turnout, states with lower voter turnout due to uncontrollable circumstances, such as inclement weather, are not unfairly penalized.
What are the Arguments against the Electoral College?
One of the most common arguments against the Electoral College is that the results may not reflect the national will; a candidate can lose the national popular vote, but still become President. A candidate with a smaller margin of victory in states with a larger number of electoral votes can win over a candidate with a larger margin of victory in states which carry less electoral votes. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore won the national popular vote, but George W. Bush received the 270 electoral votes needed to win election.
Another argument is that the Electoral College fosters a substantial focus on “swing” states. The “winner-take-all” system encourages candidates to pay the most attention to undecided states. Opponents argue that this causes candidates to ignore large segments of the population.
Some argue that the Electoral College depresses voter turnout. Because the system is not based solely on the popular vote or voter turnout, opponents argue that there is less incentive for people to vote. Opponents argue that voter turnout is an important issue that does not get addressed because of the way the Electoral College operates.
Finally, since electors are free to vote for the candidate each prefers regardless of their pledges to vote for certain candidates, there is a possibility of “faithless” electors who do not reflect the will of their state’s residents and who have the potential to change an election. Historically, faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any election. Proponents of the Electoral College argue that, in most cases of faithless electors, those electors are not trying to make a difference but simply trying to make a statement.
Are There Any Efforts to Reform the Electoral College?
There have been a number of proposals to abandon or change the Electoral College system. Three main reform efforts have received the most attention in recent years.
1. Direct popular election:
Abolish the Electoral College and substitute a single, nationwide count of popular votes.
The mechanics of this basic idea vary among different proposals. In one proposal, the candidates winning the most votes for President and Vice President would take those offices. Other proposals require that candidates receive a minimum percentage of the votes cast; one suggests the percentage should be a minimum of forty percent, while another requires a majority. If no candidate receives the minimum number or the majority vote, direct election measures generally propose a run-off election between the two candidates who received the highest number of votes for each office.
One variation on the direct popular vote approach is the “National Popular Vote Bill.” Also known as the Electoral College Compact, the Bill calls for all states which enact it to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of how the residents of their states vote. The Bill would take effect only when a combination of states totaling 270 electoral votes adopts it. In Pennsylvania, 21 members of the state House proposed this approach in April 2007. Currently, only Maryland and New Jersey have adopted this compact.
Proponents of direct popular election assert that a direct popular election best reflects the national will. It guarantees that the candidate who wins the most popular votes wins the election. Every vote in the nation would have equal weight regardless of whether the vote came from a state with a large or a small population.
Opponents of direct popular election argue that there will be more incentive for candidates to ignore less populated areas and that it will present complications in the case of contested election results. For example, recounting a national vote is more cumbersome than recounting only one state’s results.
2. The District Plan
Under this proposal, electoral votes, still allocated by state, would be awarded based on congressional districts. In other words, for every congressional district a candidate wins, he or she would receive one electoral vote; the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote would be awarded two electoral votes. This plan is currently followed in Maine and Nebraska.
Proponents argue that this would better reflect the political divisions within states. It would also give minority parties the opportunity to gain electoral votes in districts where they are strongest.
3. The Proportional Plan
This plan would allocate electoral votes based on the proportion of the popular vote each candidate gained in a state. For example, if Candidate 1 received 10% of the popular vote in a state which has ten electoral votes, Candidate 1 would receive one electoral vote from that state.
Proponents of this plan argue that it maintains the role of the states but still allocates electoral votes based on the actual popular vote, reducing the likelihood of “minority” Presidents and Vice Presidents. They also assert that the proportional plan better reflects state preferences.
What is the Process for Abolishing or Changing the Electoral College?
Since the Electoral College is established by the Constitution, a constitutional amendment is required to change or abolish it. For this to occur, the amendment must be proposed by a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.2
It is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution -- something which the founders intended when creating the amendment process. However, the Constitution does not specify any particular method for awarding electoral votes. In light of that ambiguity, modification on how electoral votes are awarded, such as in the District Plan and the Proportional Plan discussed above, would not require a Constitutional amendment.
1Originally, each elector cast two votes, both for President. The person with the highest number of votes became President and the person with the second highest number became Vice President. This created a problem when the two came from different political parties, making it difficult for both to work together. It also made the resolution of ties in the Electoral College difficult. As a result, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to provide that each elector would cast two votes, one for President and one for Vice President.
2Alternatively, 2/3 of the 50 state legislatures may call for a constitutional convention which may propose an amendment that would be adopted if 3/4 of all states ratify it. This approach has never been used.
Special thanks to Sherry S. Thomas, DLA Piper, Summer Associate 2008 and Committee of Seventy Board Member John McKeever for preparing this document.