BBC NEWS | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Q&A: The US Electoral College
An American president is not chosen directly by the people. Instead, an Electoral College is used. In a close election, the importance of the College grows.
How does the Electoral College work?
Each state has a number of electors in the Electoral College equal to the total of its US senators (always two) and its representatives, which are determined by the size of the state's population. Technically, Americans vote for the electors not the candidate.
California, the most populous state, has 55 electoral votes. A few small states and the District of Columbia have only three.
There are 538 electors in the College. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, the College works on a winner-takes-all basis. The winner of the popular vote in a state gets all the Electoral College votes in that state.
To become president, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes. The winning candidate does not need to win the national popular vote.
Why was the system chosen?
When the United States was founded, a national campaign was almost impossible given the communications; states were jealous of their rights; political parties were suspect and the popular vote somewhat feared.
The framers of the Constitution in 1787 rejected both the election of the president by Congress - because of the separation of powers - and election by direct popular vote, on the grounds that people would vote for their local candidate and the big states would dominate.
Another factor was that Southern states favoured the College system. Slaves had no votes but counted as three-fifths of a person for computing the size of a state's population.
The original idea was that only the great and the good in each state would make up the electors in the Electoral College. Over the years the College has been changed to better reflect the popular will.
Isn't it unfair that the winning candidate might get fewer popular votes?
This is seen as a major drawback of the system. In 2000 Al Gore won 48.38% of votes nationwide compared to George Bush's 47.87%. Ralph Nader took 2.74%. Yet Mr Bush won because he got 271 Electoral College votes compared to 266 for Mr Gore. The winning votes came from Florida whose 25 College seats all went to Mr Bush despite the difference between the two in the state's popular vote being only 537.
A similar thing happened in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison won in the College despite having fewer popular votes than Grover Cleveland.
Another drawback is that in many states the result is a foregone conclusion and there is thus little incentive for the individual to vote. It is also a disincentive for candidates to campaign there.
So what are the advantages?
The Electoral College system is respected for its historical roots and because it does usually reflect the popular vote. It also gives greater weight to smaller states - one of the checks and balances the US Constitution values.
For example, the largest state, California, has 12.03% of the US population but its 55 Electoral College votes represent only 10.22% of the College total. Wyoming, a sparsely populated state, has 0.18% of the US population but its three seats in the Electoral College give it 0.56% of the College votes.
The College system also means that a candidate needs to get a spread of votes from across the country.
What happens if no candidate gets a majority of Electoral College votes?
The decision is taken by the House of Representatives, because its seats are in proportion to the population and therefore reflects the popular will better than the Senate. Each state delegation, however, has only one vote, which means that the majority party in each delegation controls the vote. An absolute majority of states is required for election.
The vice-president is chosen by the Senate, with senators having an individual vote.
Are the electors in the College bound to vote for their candidates?
In some states they have a free vote but in practice they vote for the candidates they are pledged to. In other states they are required to do so. From time to time, individuals or small groups, called "faithless" electors, vote for another candidate but this has happened only rarely and no result has been changed by it. In 2000 an elector from the District of Columbia abstained.
If the result is extremely close, a "faithless" elector could cause real trouble. The issue would probably have to be decided by the courts.
The electors are chosen by the parties before the election, often in a vote at a convention. The electors then meet in state capitals after the election (this year on Monday, 13 December) to cast their votes. The results are formally declared to the Senate on 6 January. The new president is inaugurated on 20 January.
Today the small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
ReplyDeleteSmall states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
ReplyDeleteAnother shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), Arkansas (74%), California (69%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (70%), Missouri (70%), North Carolina (62%), and Rhode Island (74%). In short, Americans believe that the candidate that receives the most votes should get elected.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com