Problems with the Problems with the Electoral CollegeElectoral College

Stephanow, 2006Stephanow, 2006

WINNER DID NOT RECEIVE THE MOST POPULAR VOTES

Year Candidate Popular Vote Electoral Vote

1824 *John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson Other Candidates

105,321155,87290,869

849978

1876 *Rutherford B. Hayes Samuel Tilden

4,033,9504,284,757

185184

1888 Benjamin HarrisonGrover Cleveland

5,444,3375,540,050

233168

2000 *George W. Bush Albert Gore, Jr.

50,444,15650,997,335

271266

*1824—Elected by the House of Representatives because no candidate won a majority. 1876—An electoral commission set up to rule on contested election results in three states gave Hayes the presidency.2000—Contested election in Florida decided by U.S. Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.

CLOSE POPULAR VOTE

Year Candidate Popular Vote Electoral Vote

1884 Grover ClevelandJames G. Blaine

4, 911,0174,848,334[62,683]

219182

1960 John F. KennedyRichard M. Nixon*Harry F. Byrd

34,227,09634,108,546[118,550]

30321915

1968 Richard M. NixonHubert H. HumphreyGeorge C. Wallace

31,785,48031,275,166[510,314] 9,906,473

30119146

2000 *George W. Bush Albert Gore, Jr.

50,444,15650,997,335[553,179]

271266

1960—Received no popular votes but did receive electoral votes as a result of faithless electors.

How can someone win the popular How can someone win the popular vote, but lose the electoral vote?vote, but lose the electoral vote?

GO FOR THE BIG STATES! GO FOR THE BIG STATES! The 11 The 11 largest electoral states = 271!largest electoral states = 271!

WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A TIE?WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A TIE?

1800:1800: JeffersonJefferson 7373 Adams 65Adams 65 Jay 1Jay 1 BurrBurr 7373 Pinckney 64Pinckney 64

Before the 12th Amendment, everyone ran for President (no Before the 12th Amendment, everyone ran for President (no VP). Whoever got the most votes won the presidency; the VP). Whoever got the most votes won the presidency; the runner-up got the VP spot.runner-up got the VP spot.

When there was a tie, the election of the President goes When there was a tie, the election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. They voted for Jefferson for to the House of Representatives. They voted for Jefferson for Pres.Pres.

The The 12th Amendment12th Amendment was made which stated that the was made which stated that the Pres. and the VP would be voted on separately by electors. Pres. and the VP would be voted on separately by electors. This guarantees no tie between the one running for Pres. and This guarantees no tie between the one running for Pres. and the one running for VP, and that the VP will most likely be from the one running for VP, and that the VP will most likely be from the same political party.the same political party.

Today, when the people vote in November, we vote for Today, when the people vote in November, we vote for Pres/VP teams. (Bush/Cheney) (Kerry/Edwards). One vote, Pres/VP teams. (Bush/Cheney) (Kerry/Edwards). One vote, votes for both.votes for both.

A Few A Few Decide for Decide for the Many…the Many…

Where the power really was in 2008.Where the power really was in 2008.

Proposals…Proposals…There have been over There have been over 700700 bills bills filed in Congress since 1800, to filed in Congress since 1800, to change the Electoral College.change the Electoral College.

Proportional PlanProportional Plan

This system has been proposed with a number of This system has been proposed with a number of variations, most recently in Colorado. As a variations, most recently in Colorado. As a popular alternative, it splits each state’s electoral popular alternative, it splits each state’s electoral votes in accordance with their popular vote votes in accordance with their popular vote percentages. This way, a candidate who come in percentages. This way, a candidate who come in second place in a state with 45% of the popular second place in a state with 45% of the popular vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes from that state, instead of 0%. from that state, instead of 0%. 

Texas would have been:Texas would have been: McCainMcCain 1919 (55.5%)(55.5%) ObamaObama 1515 (43.8%)(43.8%) BarrBarr 0 0 (.7%)(.7%)

Proportional Plan ProsProportional Plan Pros

This system would greatly increase voter turnout This system would greatly increase voter turnout and the representation of all parties in a state. It and the representation of all parties in a state. It would also encourage candidates to campaign would also encourage candidates to campaign in all states rather than just those that are in all states rather than just those that are competitive. Though the majority, as always, competitive. Though the majority, as always, would come out on top in each state, the would come out on top in each state, the minority's supporters would not be effectively minority's supporters would not be effectively contributing to their candidate's defeat when the contributing to their candidate's defeat when the whole of their state's electoral votes go a whole of their state's electoral votes go a candidate they do not support. candidate they do not support. 

Proportional Plan ConsProportional Plan Cons One problem with this system is the question of how to One problem with this system is the question of how to

allocate electors proportionally. Percentages will seldom allocate electors proportionally. Percentages will seldom be equal to a whole elector after being proportioned, and be equal to a whole elector after being proportioned, and a single elector could not be evenly divided among two a single elector could not be evenly divided among two or more candidates. Some suggest that one way to or more candidates. Some suggest that one way to patch this problem of uneven electors would be to patch this problem of uneven electors would be to increase the number of electoral votes by a factor of 10 increase the number of electoral votes by a factor of 10 or 100 or more to reduce the margin of error. Others or 100 or more to reduce the margin of error. Others suggest rounding to whole votes, tenth votes, and a suggest rounding to whole votes, tenth votes, and a whole variety of decimal places beyond this. However, whole variety of decimal places beyond this. However, each of these, though reducing the amount of error, each of these, though reducing the amount of error, would still permit error and not succeed as thoroughly in would still permit error and not succeed as thoroughly in making each vote count equally. making each vote count equally. 

Proportional Plan ConsProportional Plan Cons

This would be difficult to pass on a nationwide This would be difficult to pass on a nationwide basis and would most likely have to pass state-basis and would most likely have to pass state-by-state. During this process, or even in the end by-state. During this process, or even in the end if some states do not adopt the process, one if some states do not adopt the process, one party might gain an unfair advantage. This could party might gain an unfair advantage. This could happen if some states were dividing up their happen if some states were dividing up their electoral votes while others were still giving all of electoral votes while others were still giving all of their votes to the majority party. For instance, their votes to the majority party. For instance, imagine California switching to a proportional imagine California switching to a proportional allocation while Texas sticks with winner-take-allocation while Texas sticks with winner-take-all. all. 

Congressional District PlanCongressional District Plan

This method divides electoral votes by district, This method divides electoral votes by district, allocating one vote to each district and using the allocating one vote to each district and using the remaining two as a bonus for the statewide remaining two as a bonus for the statewide popular vote winner. This method of distribution popular vote winner. This method of distribution has been used in Maine since 1972 and has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has had a statewide winner that has not swept all of had a statewide winner that has not swept all of the Congressional districts as well. the Congressional districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever spilt its Consequently, neither state has ever spilt its electoral votes. electoral votes. 

Maine & NebraskaMaine & Nebraska

Texas by Congressional District, Texas by Congressional District, 20002000

Blue is Republican

Red is Democrat

Congressional District ProsCongressional District Pros

Votes would be more representational of Votes would be more representational of people’s vote in each district.people’s vote in each district.

Congressional District ConsCongressional District Cons

This system does not address the This system does not address the disproportional aspects of the Electoral disproportional aspects of the Electoral College. Using Congressional districts to College. Using Congressional districts to determine each elector would also draw determine each elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn, more attention to the way districts are drawn, already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political parties. For for one of the two major political parties. For this reason, basing electoral vote allocation this reason, basing electoral vote allocation on Congressional districts as well would raise on Congressional districts as well would raise the stakes of redistricting considerably and the stakes of redistricting considerably and make gerrymandering even more tempting. make gerrymandering even more tempting.

Congressional District ConsCongressional District Cons

Also, while the current system causes the Also, while the current system causes the candidates to pay the most attention to just a candidates to pay the most attention to just a handful of states, the Congressional District handful of states, the Congressional District method would actually make their attention even method would actually make their attention even more tunneled. There are normally anywhere more tunneled. There are normally anywhere from 10-20 competitive swing states in any given from 10-20 competitive swing states in any given election. However, with this method, candidates election. However, with this method, candidates would rather shift their focuses to competitive would rather shift their focuses to competitive districts, the number of which would be small districts, the number of which would be small enough to further reduce the reach of enough to further reduce the reach of presidential campaigns, promises and attention. presidential campaigns, promises and attention. 

National Bonus PlanNational Bonus Plan This idea, proposed by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., This idea, proposed by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.,

retains the current Electoral College system, but also retains the current Electoral College system, but also awards extra electoral votes as a bonus to the winner of awards extra electoral votes as a bonus to the winner of the popular vote. The amount suggested by Schlesinger the popular vote. The amount suggested by Schlesinger in his National Bonus Plan is 102 extra electoral votes in his National Bonus Plan is 102 extra electoral votes (two for every state and two for Washington, DC). The (two for every state and two for Washington, DC). The extra boost of electoral votes would almost always be extra boost of electoral votes would almost always be able to guarantee that the popular vote winner would able to guarantee that the popular vote winner would also be the electoral college winner. While technically also be the electoral college winner. While technically maintaining the institution, this option compensates for maintaining the institution, this option compensates for the uneven power given to the states by the Electoral the uneven power given to the states by the Electoral College. College. 

National Bonus PlanNational Bonus Plan This method does not eliminate the spoiler dynamic of This method does not eliminate the spoiler dynamic of

third party participation, but ti would encourage people third party participation, but ti would encourage people to campaign and vote in non-competitive states in an to campaign and vote in non-competitive states in an attempt to win the popular vote. In the 2008 election, for attempt to win the popular vote. In the 2008 election, for example, Gore had no reason to campaign in Texas example, Gore had no reason to campaign in Texas because, with a winner take all allocation of electoral because, with a winner take all allocation of electoral votes, Bush’s conservative home state was clearly votes, Bush’s conservative home state was clearly going to bring in a Republican majority. However, the going to bring in a Republican majority. However, the Democratic voters living in Texas would have had more Democratic voters living in Texas would have had more incentive to go to the polls if the popular vote affected incentive to go to the polls if the popular vote affected the election. This situation is the same for the second the election. This situation is the same for the second place party in every state. place party in every state. 

Direct Vote with Plurality RuleDirect Vote with Plurality Rule

This method would abolish the Electoral College This method would abolish the Electoral College and require each person to cast one vote for the and require each person to cast one vote for the candidate of their choice. The candidate who candidate of their choice. The candidate who receives the most votes nationwide would win receives the most votes nationwide would win the election, with or without a majority of the the election, with or without a majority of the votes. This option would require a constitutional votes. This option would require a constitutional amendment to be implemented and would amendment to be implemented and would therefore need the support of 2/3 of Congress therefore need the support of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. and 3/4 of the states. 

Direct Vote ProsDirect Vote Pros This method of voting would more accurately reflect the This method of voting would more accurately reflect the

popular will of the nation at large. Statistics have shown popular will of the nation at large. Statistics have shown that more people vote when they know that their vote that more people vote when they know that their vote has a better chance at making a difference. Since each has a better chance at making a difference. Since each vote would affect the final total used to determine the vote would affect the final total used to determine the winner, a direct vote would eliminate the Electoral winner, a direct vote would eliminate the Electoral College’s ability to create a non-competitive winner-College’s ability to create a non-competitive winner-take-all enclave that essentially dilutes people’s votes. take-all enclave that essentially dilutes people’s votes. Direct elections are simple and popular, and eliminate Direct elections are simple and popular, and eliminate the potential problem of “faithless electors” betraying the potential problem of “faithless electors” betraying their pledges to party and public, and unfairly negating their pledges to party and public, and unfairly negating any number of popular votes. any number of popular votes. 

Who would have won in 2000 Who would have won in 2000 under this plan?under this plan?

Candidate Candidate Popular Vote % Popular Vote % George W. Bush 50,460,110 47.87% George W. Bush 50,460,110 47.87% Albert Gore 51,003,926 48.38% Albert Gore 51,003,926 48.38% Ralph Nader 2,883,105 2.73% Ralph Nader 2,883,105 2.73% Patrick Buchanan 449,225 0.43% Patrick Buchanan 449,225 0.43% Harry Browne 384,5160 .36%Harry Browne 384,5160 .36%

Direct Vote ConsDirect Vote Cons A direct vote, however, would not eliminate the A direct vote, however, would not eliminate the

entrenchment of the two party system nor the “spoiler” entrenchment of the two party system nor the “spoiler” considerations of minor parties and independent considerations of minor parties and independent candidates. In a close race, voting for a candidate from candidates. In a close race, voting for a candidate from a minor party could reinforce the same spoiler dynamic a minor party could reinforce the same spoiler dynamic as exists within the current system. There is a possibility as exists within the current system. There is a possibility that with multiple candidates, a winner could be that with multiple candidates, a winner could be declared with just a small plurality of votes instead of a declared with just a small plurality of votes instead of a strong majority. Also, a close election would require a strong majority. Also, a close election would require a nation-wide recount rather than just recounting the nation-wide recount rather than just recounting the states in question, which would make the process in states in question, which would make the process in such a situation much longer. such a situation much longer. 

Should the Electoral College Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?Be Abolished?