Choosing a Leader - The Electoral College

The Electoral College System is plagued by three major defects:

(1) the winner of the popular vote is not guaranteed the presidency; (2) electors are not required to vote in accord with the popular vote; and (3) any election might have to be decided in the House of Representatives.

The National Popular Vote Plan

A quite different approach to electoral college reform has recently surfaced: the national popular vote plan—in effect, a proposal to bring about the direct popular election of the President—and to do so without making any change in the words of the Constitution.

Defending the Electoral College

Although their case is not often heard, the present electoral college system does have its defenders. They react to the several proposed reforms by raising the various objections to them you have just read. Beyond that, most of these supporters argue that critics regularly exaggerate the "dangers" they see in the present system. Thus, they note that only two presidential elections have ever gone to the House of Representatives and that none has gone there in more than 180 years.

Special Cases

If no candidate has won a majority—today, at least 270 of 538 electoral votes—the election is put to the House of Representatives. This happened in 1800 and in 1824. The House chooses a President from among the top three candidates voted for by the electoral college. Each State delegation has one vote, and at least 26 votes are needed. If the House fails to choose a President by January 20, the 20th Amendment provides that the newly elected Vice President shall act as President until a choice is made.

Applying the Plans to Real Scenarios

If the district plan had been in place in 1960, Richard Nixon, not John F. Kennedy, would have won the presidency. And in 1976 the presidential election would almost certainly have had to be decided by the House. Were a proportional plan in effect, in 1960, the Kennedy-Nixon election would very likely have had to go to the House. And, the House would almost certainly have had to decide who won the White House in 1968, 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2000.

Analyzing Proposed Reforms in Light of Goals

If the goal of reform is to ensure that the winner of the national popular vote would in fact win the presidency, only direct election would guarantee that result. Neither the district nor the proportional plan would do so.

The Third Major Defect

In any presidential election, it is possible that the contest will be decided in the House. This has happened only twice, and not since 1824. In several other elections, however—most recently, 1968—a strong third-party bid has threatened to make it impossible for either major party candidate to win a majority in the electoral college, and so throw the election into the House of Representatives.

The Second Major Defect

Nothing in the Constitution, nor in any federal statute, requires the electors to vote for the candidate favored by the popular vote in their States. Several States do have such laws, but they are of doubtful constitutionality, and none has ever been enforced.

Direct Popular Election

Proposals for direct popular election would not reform but, instead, abolish the electoral college system. The voters in all 50 States and the District of Columbia would be given the power to actually choose the President and the Vice President. Each vote, cast anywhere in the country, would count equally in the national result. The winner would, therefore, always be the choice of a majority or at least a plurality of the nation's voters.

States Against Direct Election

Some argue that direct election would weaken the federal system because the States, as States, would lose their role in the choice of a President. Also, in several States, a Statewide election often hinges on the behavior of some particular group in the electorate. The overall result in the State depends in large part on how that group of voters cast their ballots or, often more importantly, on how heavily they do or do not turn out to vote. As but one of many examples of the point, the African American vote in Cook County (Chicago) is regularly decisive in a presidential election in Illinois. With direct election, those key groups would not have the critical power they now enjoy, and so many of them oppose direct election of the President.

Other Arguments Against Direct Election

Some believe that direct election would put too great a load on the election process. They believe this because every vote, no matter where it was cast, would count in the national result. And so candidates would have to campaign strenuously everywhere. The impact that would have on campaign time, effort, and finances would be huge and, opponents argue, probably unmanageable.

Stating the Electoral College's Strengths

Supporters also say that the present arrangement, whatever its warts, has three major strengths: It is a known process. Each of the proposed, but untried, reforms may very well have defects that can't be known until they appear in practice. In nearly every instance, the present system identifies the President-to-be quickly and certainly. Rarely does the nation have to wait very long to know the outcome of the presidential election. Although it does present an enormous obstacle to minor party candidates, the present arrangement does help promote the nation's two-party system.

Counting the Electoral Votes

The Constitution provides that the date Congress sets for the electors to meet "shall be the same throughout the United States." The 12th Amendment provides that "the Electors shall meet in their respective States." The electors therefore meet at their State capital on the date set by Congress, now the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. There they each cast their electoral votes, one for President and one for Vice President. The electors' ballots, signed and sealed, are sent by registered mail to the president of the Senate.

What are the three major flaws of the Electoral College system? Use information you learned from the text to support your answer.

The Electoral College system has three major flaws. First, the winner of the popular vote does not always win the presidency, which is due to the winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College. The second flaw is that electors do not have to follow the popular vote, which is not required by the Constitution. The third flaw is that the House of Representatives ultimately might have to decide the results of an election. As a result of these three flaws, some people have called for reforms to the Electoral College.

Why did the Framers of the Constitution create an Electoral College rather than have a direct election of the president?

The Framers believed the country was too large for candidate to make themselves known to the electorate. In this case, voters would not be able to make an informed decision.

Choosing Electors

The electors are chosen by popular vote in every State on the same day: the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every fourth year. So the 2016 presidential election is set for November 8, 2016. In every State except Maine and Nebraska, the electors are chosen at large. That is, they are chosen on a winner-take-all basis. The presidential candidate—technically, the slate of elector-candidates nominated by the party—who receives the largest number of popular votes in a State regularly wins all of that State's electoral votes.

Could This Be the Answer?

The national popular vote plan is the only proposal to reform the electoral college that attracts any significant amount of public attention today. By the end of 2014, it had been approved by ten States—California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, and New York—as well as the District of Columbia. It is under serious consideration in several others.

When the Defect Becomes Reality

The popular vote winner has, in fact, failed to win the presidency four times: in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. In that latest instance, the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore, won 50,999,897 popular votes—543,895 more votes than his Republican opponent, the then-governor of Texas, George W. Bush. However, Mr. Bush received 271 electoral votes—one more than the bare majority in the electoral college, and so he became the nation's 43rd President.

What do you think is the greatest flaw in the Electoral College system? Explain your answer.

The present system does not guarantee that the popular vote will stand. American democracy is based on majority rule, but not in the case of presidential elections.

The First Major Defect

There is the ever-present threat that the winner of the popular vote will not win the presidency. This danger is largely the result of two factors. The most important is the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college system. That is, the winning candidate customarily receives all of a State's electoral votes. Thus, in 2012, President Obama won just 51 percent of the popular vote in Virginia. Still, he won all of that State's 13 electoral votes—despite the fact that nearly 1.8 million Virginians voted for his opponent, Mitt Romney.

Objections to Election by the House of Representatives

Three serious objections can be raised regarding election by the House. First, the voting in such cases is by States, not by individual members. A State with a small population, such as Alaska, Wyoming, or Vermont, would have as much weight as the most populous State. Second, if the representatives from a State were so divided that no candidate was favored by a majority, that State would lose its vote. Third, the Constitution requires a majority of the States for election in the House—today, 26 States. If a strong third-party candidate were involved, there is a real possibility that the House could not make a decision by Inauguration Day.

A Consistent Problem

To this point, 15 Presidents have won the White House with less than a majority of the popular votes cast in their elections. The most recent of these "minority Presidents" were Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000.

District and Proportional Plans

Under the district plan, each State would choose its electors much as it chooses its members of Congress. That is, two electors would be chosen from the State at large, and they would be required to cast their electoral votes in line with the popular vote in their State. The State's other electors would be chosen, separately, in each of that State's congressional districts. The votes of these electors would be cast in accord with the popular vote in their districts. Remember, two States—Maine and Nebraska—now choose their electors on a district plan basis.