Chapter Ten: Election Day

On the Tuesday in November that falls between November 2 and November 8, control of the presidential election finally passes into the hands of the American voter—where it belongs. After all the ceaseless campaigning by the candidates, all the news coverage, television and radio advertising, videos, blogging and expert punditry, and all the hard work by the candidate’s supporters, it comes down to this: the voters’ decision about which of the candidates they feel is most qualified to lead the nation.

A College Education: How Does the Electoral College Work?

You’d think that the election of the president and vice president would be a relatively simple matter—whoever gets the most votes wins. But it’s a lot more complicated than that. Instead of providing that the president and vice president should be chosen directly by voters, the U.S. Constitution created an institution called the Electoral College that actually casts the deciding vote. The Electoral College was one of the many ways in which our founders tried to keep “popular passions” from steering the national government in the wrong direction.

In the beginning, the Electoral College had considerable power in making an independent choice among the candidates for president and vice president. But today, the sole function of the Electoral College is to confirm the decision made by American voters at the ballot box. In other words, despite the existence of the Electoral College, voters still are in the driver’s seat in determining who will serve as president. So don’t think your vote doesn’t count.

Under the Constitution, each state is authorized to choose electors for president and vice president; the number of electors per state is equal to the combined number of U.S. senators and representatives from that state. The Electoral College thus includes 535 electors from the states—that’s one elector for every member of Congress—plus three electors from the District of Columbia, for a grand total of 538.

When voters choose a presidential ticket including the presidential and vice presidential candidate, they are actually voting for electors pledged to this ticket. In all but two states, the ticket that wins a plurality of the votes—in other words, more votes than any other candidate—wins all of that state’s electors. (In Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote gets two electoral votes; the others are awarded according to who wins each congressional district.) This winner-take-all system is what drives candidates to focus so intently in their campaigning on swing states with large populations and, consequently, large numbers of electors (see chapter 9 for more on campaign strategy).

To be elected to the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority (270) of the electoral votes. The vice president is elected by the same indirect, state-by-state method, but the electors vote separately for the two offices.

If no presidential candidate receives a majority, the House of Representatives picks the winner from the top three vote getters, with each state’s delegation in the House casting only one vote, regardless of its size. (This has happened twice in U.S. history—in 1800 and 1824.) If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, the Senate picks the winner from the top two vote getters.

 The Electoral College: Pro and Con  

PRO

It Ain’t Broke, So Don’t Fix It

For the past one hundred years, the Electoral College has functioned without a problem and without much complaint from the public in every presidential election—through two world wars, a major economic depression, and several periods of civil unrest.

It Fosters the Two-Party System

The winner-take-all system (in all but two states) generally means that third-party and independent candidates get few electoral votes. As a result, the Electoral College inhibits the rise of splinter parties that can contribute to political instability and deadlock. (Note: Some people use this argument against the Electoral College, saying its bias against third-party and independent candidates locks them out of the process and inhibits debate.)

It Gives Added Power to Minority Groups

Because of the winner-take-all system, a relatively small number of voters in a state can make the difference in determining which candidate gets that state’s electoral votes. This gives well-
organized minority groups a chance to have a profound influence on the election by getting their voters to the polls.

It Promotes a Federal System of Government

The Electoral College was designed to reflect each state’s choice for the presidency and vice presidency. To abolish it in favor of a nationwide popular election of the president would strike at the very heart of our federal system of government, which reserves important political powers to the states.

CON

It Ignores the Popular Vote

The Electoral College doesn’t base its decision on the popular vote across the country, but on which candidates won which states. As a result, there’s a chance that someone could be elected president without receiving more popular votes than any other candidates. Two candidates in the nineteenth century, as well as George W. Bush in 2000, were elected president without winning the popular vote.

It Discourages Voter Turnout

The Electoral College system makes many people feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference. Voters might be inclined to skip voting, for example, if it’s clear from the news and the polls that Candidate X is bound to win their state.

It Violates the One-Person One-Vote Ideal

Each state has a minimum of three electors, regardless of its population. This gives residents of the smallest states, which based on their population might otherwise be entitled to just one or two electors, more influence than residents of larger states.

It Doesn’t Require Electors to Vote the Way They Pledged To

It rarely happens, but there’s nothing preventing electors from defecting from the candidate to whom they are pledged. In 2000, an elector from the District of Columbia abstained from voting to protest what she called D.C.’s “colonial status.” Faithless electors could conceivably alter who wins the election, though none ever has.

[end SB]

  From the book, Choosing the President 20008: A Citizen’s Guide to the Electoral Process.Copyright 2008 by the League of Women Voters

Used by permission of Globe Pequot Press, www.globepequot.com