Contents
The electoral college: history, composition, conflicts with plurality (II.B)
A team project for MA279, Fall 2013
Team members: M.Avram, B.Holman, M.Corcoran, and R.Sina
1) Definition, Background, and History
Background:
The Constitutional Convention had come up with multiple ideas for how to elect the president of the United States when the country was first founded. However several of them would have created an imbalance of power between the legislative and executive branch. Even the idea of popular vote deciding the president was not well received. This was due to the fear that candidates outside of the voters’ states would not be well liked. Much of that would be from lack of knowledge and favoring the candidate from the voters’ own state.
Original Idea:
An indirect method of electing the president through a College of Electors was proposed. Originally the idea was that the most knowledgeable people from each state would select the president based on their qualifications and not their affiliation to a single state. In this system the number of votes per a state was decided by the size of each State’s Congressional representatives.
Analysis on original idea:
It seems clear that the assumptions that were made by the Founding Fathers were long since violated in present day. While the original idea was not bad in any sense. With the current system, it seems that there are many issue that have arisen. If the Founding Fathers were able to predict or see how the country would develop, I believe they would not have chosen the same method that they did. Since with the formation of political parties, campaigning, and such, the country is in a very different state and mindset from back then.
For more information on the background of the Electoral College see: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
History:
The electoral college was set up in The U.S. Constitution which was adopted in 1787. In 1789 George Washington was the first President elected through the electoral college by unanimous vote, there were only 13 states at the time. The electoral college was first designed to work without political parties and national campaigns. It lasted through only four presidential elections. After the election of 1800 the electoral college system was redesigned for political parties and to prevent ties. In the presidential election of 1800, the Electors gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor after 36 tries and a lot of debate and political negotiations. This kind of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent. After this congress quickly adopted the 12th amendment of The Constitution in September of 1804. The 12th Amendment requires that each Elector casts one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president opposed to the previous method of casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president.
For more information on the election of 1800 and the 12th amendment as well as other historical information on the electoral college see: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
The Electoral College was designed based on 4 main assumptions:
1. Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
2. Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
3. Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of President and Vice President.
4. The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress.
When the founding fathers were trying to decide how the president should be elected they turned down the idea of a straight popular vote by the U.S population. They were afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. The electoral college was created so there was a buffer between the population and the selection of the President.
Analysis of History and Design:
It is clear that our founding fathers worked very hard to create a system that would be fitting for electing the president in the best interest of the country. They tried to plan ahead for the developing country but could not foresee the political party system that we have today. Adjustments have been made along the way but the system is still very flawed. They brainstormed many other ways to elect the president but this is what they believed to be the best method. In my opinion it shows that neither option is perfect, and there probably will always be disputes and conflicts between the way we elect our president. It is extremely hard to find a system that is fair to every single person/group. No matter how you do it not everyone will be satisfied.
2) Composition and Apportionment
Composition:
As you may know the president and vice-president in the United States are selected by two entities: The people, and Congress. In more detail, given the first Monday of November in the year prior the election year, people attend local voting booths to vote for their next president and vice president of the United States. The catch however is that the people are not directly voting for the president and vice president but voting for electors who, given their turn, vote for the president and vice president.
For more information on “Composition” see: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html
Apportionment:
Today there are a total of 538 electors, 535 of them being Congressional members, and 3 from Washington D.C. Moreover, these electors are apportioned unequally between the states where more population dense states have more electors and less population dense states have fewer electors. In any case the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of U.S. senators (two in each state) plus the number of U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state’s population. These electors are usually people connected to politics and are politically active in their respective parties. In turn the electors are selected by state legislatures and there are very few specific requirements, or qualifications restricting them to run for electors.
For more information on “Apportionment” see: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html
How the President is elected:
On the First Monday after the second Wednesday in December (approximately one month after the people cast their votes at the booths) the electors meet in their respective state capitals and officially cast their votes for president and vice president. After having signed, certified, and sent their decisions to the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate will open all the certificates and count all of the votes. If one of the candidates for president or vice president has a majority vote, (e.g. has more than 269 votes) he or she is selected to be president or vice president respectively. If however; there is no majority, the House of Representatives is endowed with the task of choosing the president by counting the ballots from each state, counting one vote per state, and finding the two-thirds majority candidate from the cumulative states’ votes. If however the House of Representatives fail to select a president, the selected vice-president automatically becomes president. If the most unfortunate phase occurs where the majority vice-president cannot be selected; then the Senate shall choose a Vice-President. After the permanent president is chosen, he or she is sworn into office on January 20th.
For more on “How President is elected” see: http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-12-choosing-the-president-vice-president
Analysis on Composition and Apportionment:
We believe that there are flaws with the way the voting system in the United States is set up. The first fault with the voting system is the fact that the Electoral College enables certain states to have more voting power than other states. More specifically, a dense state like Indiana with an approximate population of 6.5 million people and 11 electoral votes (amounting to 6.5million/11 = 590,909 people for one electoral vote) compared to a sparse state like Texas with an approximate population of 26 million people and 38 electoral votes (amounting to 26million/38 = 684,210 people for one vote) will make Indiana’s residents have more voting power which is not fair to the residents of Texas. We believe that another fault with the voting system is the fact that, upon elected by the people, the electors are supposed to vote for their party’s candidate; however, there have been cases where the electors voted for another candidate or did not vote at all. To make matters worse, these anomalies have not even been extensively punished which we do not think is fair for the people who those electors to vote righteously. Finally we believe that ideally the United States needs to have a system in which everybody’s vote is equal, and everybody’s vote counts.
3) Conflicts with Plurality
Past conflicts in real elections:
In 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the winner of the election did not receive the plurality of the nationwide popular vote. Based on the Electoral College system, a candidate could win the election while only having 22% of the popular vote. This shows how the popular vote is irrelevant and could have no impact on the election. Thus, the principle of one person one vote is violated and the Electoral College does not follow the concept of how a democratic system should operate.
Focus on Select States:
Since the Electoral College distributes its votes by population of state, presidential nominees can plan where to spend the majority of their campaign. Nominees are not going to spend time and money on a state where there are few electoral votes, such as Montana. By calculating the Banzhaf power index of small states' impact on who is president against the large states, it was calculated that California voters have 3.3 times more power in choosing the president. In a democratic system, each state should have an equal influence when voting for president.
Because of the "winner take all mentality" when distributing votes, nominees devote more of their time to key swing states. In 2004 and 2008 there were three swing states which, depending on how they voted, could have changed who became president.
For more information about problems with the electoral college see: http://www.thenation.com/blog/171115/its-time-end-electoral-college#
and one can read: Edwards III, George C. (2011). Why the Electoral College is Bad for America
Analysis on Conflicts with Plurality:
Four out of five voters in the national election are completely ignored by the nominees. The system that we have now causes the focus of the presidential race on a few states. Since each state must allocate all of their votes to one candidate, states that are indecisive in their pre-election polling gain the most attention from candidates. This is not how a democratic system should work. Plurality is no longer considered when presidential nominees can win with only 22% of the national vote. A formidable solution to the electoral college system would be the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". With this compact, states would agree to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Then, the state legislatures would establish a direct election. Here, voters directly cast ballots for the nominee that they want. Currently, the Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, the voters elect a body who then elects the president. There are nine states (136 electoral votes) who have signed the agreement and if it reaches 270 electoral votes, then the interstate compact would be effective the next election. Although this agreement has its flaws, it is a better representation of what the people want than the Electoral College method.
You can find more information of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact at: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
