Electoral College 2004 Allocation -- The Green Papers -- Information regarding the Electoral College system for the upcoming 2004 presidential election, including state-by-state statistics.

How the Electoral College Works Today

The system of the Electoral College was established in Article II, section I, of the U.S. Constitution. It was modified mainly by the 12^th Amendment which clarified the process.

When U.S. citizens vote for President and Vice President every election year, they are actually electing a set of individual "Electors" to represent their state. The Electors from every state combine to form the Electoral College.

Each state is given a set number of Electors, determined by the number of the its U.S. Senators (which is always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives. The number of Representatives in each state correlates with the state population and is amended every decade when the Census is taken.

Each political party with a candidate on the ballot designates their own set of Electors for each state, matching the number of Electors they appoint with the number of Electoral votes allotted to the state. U.S. Senators and Representatives are not allowed to serve as Electors.

Electors are typically strong supporters of the political party, but only 26 states require Electors to vote with the party they are pledged to.

On election day, ballots show the names of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, though voters are really selecting which set of Electors they would like to represent their state.

The party that wins the most votes in each state appoints all of the Electors for that state. This is known as a winner-take-all allocation of Electors. The only exceptions to this are in Maine and Nebraska.

The Electors for each state cast their votes in mid-December. The votes are sealed and sent to the President of the Senate. Though the public votes for the party as a whole, the Electors cast individual votes for President and Vice President. This has become important in several elections where Electors voted for candidates other than those they were pledged to.

On January 6, the President of the U.S. Senate opens all of the sealed envelopes containing the Electoral votes and reads them aloud. To be elected as President or Vice President, a candidate must have an absolute majority of the Electoral votes for that position.

A majority is not guaranteed within the Electoral College. An election with no Electoral College majority could occur in two ways; if two candidates tie with 269 votes each or if three or more candidates receive Electoral votes.

If no Presidential candidate obtains a majority of the Electoral votes, the decision is deferred to the U.S. House of Representatives. The House then selects the President, choosing between the top three candidates.

Each state receives only one vote and an absolute majority of the states (26) is required to elect the President. In this situation, Washington, DC would lose the voting power given to it by the 23^rd Amendment (since it does not have the Congressional representation given to the states).

A majority winner is not guaranteed in the House. The states could split their votes equally between 2 candidates (25 state votes each) or the votes could be split between three candidates in such a way that no candidate receives a majority.

Also, since every state only gets one vote, the Representatives from each state must come to a decision on which candidate to support. A state with an equal number of Representatives supporting the competing parties would not be able to cast its vote unless one Representative agreed to vote for the opposing side.

If a majority is not reached within the House by January 20 (the day the President and Vice President are sworn in), the Vice President serves as President until the House is able to make a decision.

If the Vice President has not been elected either, the Speaker of the House serves as acting President until the House is able to make a decision.

If no Vice Presidential candidate obtains a majority of Electoral votes, the decision is deferred to the U.S. Senate.

The Senate would then elect the Vice President, choosing between the two candidates receiving the highest number of Electoral votes for that office.

Every U.S. Senator is allotted one vote and an absolute majority of the votes (51) is required to elect the Vice President.

Again, the Senate could be split evenly between the top two candidates, giving each candidate 50 votes.

If no Vice Presidential candidate receives 51 Senatorial votes by January 20, the President appoints the Vice President, pending approval by Congress.

Controversial Elections

Below is a list of some of the more controversial U. S. Presidential Elections. Scroll down for the whole list or click on a specific year to read the story.

1800 
1824 
1836
1872
1876
1888
2000

1800
(Thomas Jefferson - John Adams)

In the 1800 Presidential election, the Democratic-Republicans ran Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr on their ballot. Jefferson and Burr won a clear majority of the national vote. All 73 Democratic-Republican members of the Electoral College voted faithfully, casting two votes each, one for Jefferson and one for Burr.

Before the 12th Amendment, Electors cast two votes for their party without specifying one as being for the President and the other as being for the Vice President. Because of this, Jefferson and Burr received exactly the same number of Electoral votes and the election was a tie.

Since there was no majority within the Electoral College, the decision was deferred to the House of Representatives, then controlled by the Federalist Party. Though Jefferson was clearly the Democratic-Republican’s candidate for President, the Federalist Party considered Burr to be less of an evil than Jefferson. They tried to rally support for Burr in place of Jefferson. Burr also refused to endorse Jefferson.

The House had difficulty coming to a majority and cast 36 separate votes within one week. Though the original election was in November, the final House vote, electing Jefferson as President, did not occur until February 7, 1800. Aaron Burr was appointed as Vice President.

This election prompted the passing of the 12th Amendment which introduced double balloting. The Electoral College now casts two separate votes, one for President and one for Vice President.

Back To Top

1824
(Jackson - Adams - Crawford - Clay)

This was the first election where the winner of the popular vote did not become the President.

Andrew Jackson won a slight plurality in the popular vote, leading John Quincy Adams by 38,149 votes. Four candidates received Electoral votes, though none received enough to constitute a majority:

Andrew Jackson received 99 Electoral votes.
John Quincy Adams received 84 Electoral votes.
William H. Crawford received 41 Electoral votes.
Henry Clay received 37 Electoral votes.

Since there was no majority within the Electoral College, the decision was deferred to the House of Representatives. The House is only allowed to vote on the top three contenders from the Electoral College so Henry Clay was removed from the election.

Adams, who was Jackson’s most viable competition, sought Clay’s support, knowing it would bring him victory. Clay agreed to support Adams and with their combined efforts, Adams won the majority within the House.

When Adams became President, he appointed Henry Clay as Secretary of State. Many have suspected that the promise of the position was why Clay agreed to support Adams.

Jackson called the whole situation a "corrupt bargain" and spent the next four years campaigning on how the election was stolen from him.

Though Jackson did win the popular vote in 1824, not all states recorded a popular vote. In six of the 24 existing states, the Electoral College members were appointed by the State Legislature. These six states (NY, SC, GA, VT, LA, DE) comprised nearly 25% of the electorate.

The number of voters for each Electoral vote also varied considerably. There were more voters in Indiana, which carried 5 Electoral votes, than there were in Virginia, which carried 24 Electoral votes. More than three times as many people voted in Ohio than in Virginia, yet Ohio only cast 16 electoral votes.

Some states were won with very high percentages; Jackson carried 98% of Tennessee’s popular vote, Adams carried 94% of New Hampshire’s vote. Neither candidate had national appeal and both were absent on the ballot in at least one state.

Despite these variations in representation, Jackson’s 4-year campaign highlighting the unfairness was successful. He won the Presidency in 1828, presenting himself as a man of the people, not the government.

Back To Top

1836
(Van Buren - The Whig Party)

In the 1836 election, the Democratic-Republican’s Presidential candidate, Martin Van Buren, won both the popular vote and the electoral vote.

His main competition was the Whig Party. The Whigs hoped to expose the design of the Electoral College by running several different candidates in different areas, picking individuals with a great deal of regional appeal.

The Whigs hoped to win a party majority throughout the country with this method, which would then allow them to choose the individual they wished to become President.

They were unsuccessful and Martin Van Buren won the election with nearly 60% of the Electoral votes, though his popular vote lead was just over 50%. His running mate, Richard M. Johnson, did not fare so well.  Upon hearing the allegation that Johnson had children with an African-American woman, the 23 Democratic-Republican Electors of Virginia refused to give him their votes.

Without those 23 votes, Johnson did not receive a majority vote within the Electoral College. The decision was deferred to the Senate where Johnson was finally elected by a majority vote as the new Vice President.

Back To Top

1872
(Grant - Greeley)

Horace Greeley established the Liberal Republicans (or Democrats) in protest of incumbent Ulysses S. Grant. Greeley ran against Grant in the 1872 Presidential election.

Though few took Greeley seriously at first, he gained support throughout the campaign and eventually gathered 40% of the popular vote, only 800,000 less than Grant.

Greeley received a total of 2.8 million votes and would have received 86 Electoral votes had he not died on November 29, after the general election but before the Electoral College convened to cast their votes.

With no precedent to guide them, Greeley’s Electors split the 84 votes among four minor candidates. Grant had already won an absolute majority of the Electoral votes so the result of the election was not affected. However, history was slightly skewed because Grant is credited with defeating Greeley, 286-0.

Back To Top

1876
(Tilden - Hayes)

One of the most controversial Presidential elections was between Samuel Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes.

Tilden, a Democrat, won the popular vote by nearly 250,000 votes, over 3%. On the night of the election, both candidates, as well as most of the National media, assumed Tilden was the winner. However, some Republicans were not willing to give up so easily.

The candidate’s Electoral votes were close and the Republicans contested 20 of them, including 4 from Florida, 8 from Louisiana, 7 from South Carolina, and 1 from Oregon.

Out of these 20 Electoral votes, Tilden only needed 1 to win the election. Hayes needed all 20.

Without any precedent for this many contested Electoral votes, both parties agreed to set up a 15 person commission to study the contested votes and to impartially decide whom each vote should go to.

The commission was made up of 5 Senators, 5 members of Congress, and 5 Supreme Court Justices. It was originally set up to include 7 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and one independent who was expected to be unbiased and nonpartisan.

At this time, the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Both parties agreed that the findings of the commission would be upheld unless overruled by both the House and the Senate.

When the independent who was supposed to serve on the commission was elected as a Senator, he resigned his position on the commission and was replaced by a Republican. The commission now had 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats.

Over a series of discussions, the commission voted along party lines and awarded all 20 votes to Samuel Hayes, the Republican candidate. Each vote was 8-7, with the Republican majority controlling the decision. Every decision of the commission was contested by the Democratic House but was upheld by the Republican Senate.

The Democrats threatened to filibuster but eventually agreed to a resolution that Hayes would withdraw federal troops from the South, ending reconstruction and the enforcement of equal voting rights for blacks.

This election was clearly corrupted and has found a place in every debate over the Electoral College since.

For a more complete analysis and timeline of the 1876 election, see the special website designed by Harper's Weekly.  

Back To Top

1888
(Harrison - Cleveland)

1888 was another election where the winner of the popular vote did not become President.

Democratic incumbent Grover Cleveland had won the popular vote by a margin of 0.8% (90,596 out of 11,383,320 votes). Despite this slim popular victory, Republican Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College majority (233 out of 401 votes).

Harrison won the Electoral College without the popular vote by winning slim majorities in his winning states and suffering considerable losses in his losing states. Six Southern states favored Cleveland by more than 65%.

The reason for this split was the issue of tariffs. The South strongly favored lowering of the tariff. The Republicans approved of high tariffs and were unpopular in the South. Tariff reform gave Cleveland immense support in the Southern states, but the South alone was not enough to win the election.

When elected in 1884, Cleveland was the first Democrat elected since before the Civil War. He came back to challenge and defeat Harrison in 1892.

Back To Top

2000
(Bush - Gore) 

The 2000 Presidential Election was the most recent election where the popular vote winner was not elected. George W. Bush, son of former President George H.W. Bush, ran on the Republican ticket against Democratic candidate, and the sitting Vice President, Al Gore.

Though Gore held a slim popular vote victory of 543,895 (0.5%), Bush won the Electoral College 271-266, with one Gore Elector abstaining.

The election was plagued with allegations of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. Rumors of illegal road blocks, unclear ballots, and uncounted votes, particularly in swing states like Missouri and Florida, were rampant.

Florida became the key state as the election drew to a close. Consisting of nearly 6 million voters, Florida was officially won by a margin of 537 votes, after a process of recounting the votes and a Supreme Court ruling.

Voters complained about confusing ballots and many Florida voters believed that they accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan, a conservative running on the Reform ticket, when they meant to vote for Al Gore.

Another significant candidate in the 2000 election was Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader. Nader attracted just under 3% of voters with a progressive platform focused on social and environmental issues.

Democratic supporters targeted Nader as being a “spoiler” for Al Gore. Since Nader was left-of-center, Democrats argued that most of his voters would have otherwise supported Gore. In such a close election, many believe that Gore would have won if Nader had dropped out of the race.

The 2000 election resulted in numerous court battles over contested ballots and recounts. These lawsuits escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court where the final, 5-4 decision was made, ending the recounts and giving the state of Florida's Electoral votes to George W. Bush.

In the end, Gore conceded the election publicly, though he did not hide his displeasure at the Supreme Court’s ruling.

For a complete timeline of the election and links to several articles, visit CNN’s "Election 2000 Archive." 

"Faithless Electors"

"Faithless Electors" are members of the Electoral College who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party's designated candidate.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors.

71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes.

Three of the votes were not cast at all. These three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate.

The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector. Sometimes Electors changed their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia Electors acted together in 1836. Many times, these Electors stood alone in their decision.

As of the 2000 election, no Elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against their party’s designated candidate.

Despite these 156 faithless votes, and a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214), 26 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate. 
 

The 24 states that do have requirements issue a variety of punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and possible criminal charges.

The names, dates, and stories of these 156 votes are listed below:

2000 - Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia)

1988 - Margaret Leach (Democrat, West Virginia)

2000 - Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia)

Her abstention was meant to protest the lack of Congressional representation for Washington, DC.

Lett-Simmons was the first Elector to abstain from voting since 1832.

Her abstention did not affect the outcome of the election.
 

1988 - Margaret Leach (Democrat, West Virginia)

Margaret Leach, a nurse from Huntington, WV, was pledged to the Democratic Party. During the Electoral College process, Leach learned that members of the Electoral College were not required to vote for the candidates they were pledged to.

Upon learning this, she decided to draw more attention to the situation by switching her votes for President and Vice President.

She cast her Presidential vote for Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and cast her Vice Presidential vote for Michael Dukakis, the Democratic Presidential candidate.

Leach tried to convince other Electors to join her, but hers remained the only unexpected vote.

1976 - Mike Padden (Republican, Washington) 

Mike Padden, a lawyer from Spokane, WA, was pledged to vote for Gerald Ford, the Republican candidate for President.

Padden instead voted for Ronald Reagan, who had run in the Republican primary and lost, as President and Robert Dole as Vice President. Dole was running as Gerald Ford's running mate.

1972 - Roger L. MacBride (Republican, Virginia)

Roger L. MacBride was pledged to the Republican party of Virginia. He was once a candidate for governor of Vermont on the Republican ballot.

In the 1972 election, MacBride did not cast his Electoral vote for Richard Nixon, the Republican Presidential candidate, but for John Hospers, the Libertarian Presidential candidate.

He also cast his Vice Presidential vote for Toni Nathan, the Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate, making Nathan the first woman to receive an Electoral vote.

MacBride ran as the Libertarian candidate for President in the next election but did not receive any Electoral votes of his own.

1968 - Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey (Republican, North Carolina)

Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey was an Elector for the Republican Party of North Carolina.

He did not vote for Richard Nixon, but for George Wallace, the Presidential candidate for the American Independence Party. Wallace received a total of 46 Electoral votes.

Bailey claimed that Nixon had done some things that displeased him (like appointing Henry Kissinger and Daniel Moynihan) and so did not want to vote for him.

He also protested that he had never signed a pledge promising to vote for any particular candidate. Bailey also said that his vote for Wallace was justified because Wallace was the winner in Bailey’s district.

1960 - Henry D. Irwin (Republican, Oklahoma)   

Henry D. Irwin, a Republican Elector from Oklahoma, was originally pledged to Richard Nixon. Irwin later admitted in an interview with CBS that he "could not stomach" Nixon.

Irwin also believed that the founding fathers never intended the "indigent, the nonproperty owners" to be included in the Presidential vote.

He tried to convince the Democratic and Republican Electors to reject both Kennedy and Nixon as Presidential candidates. His choice replacement was a combination of two conservative Senators: Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and Barry Goldwater of Arizona.

He sent out telegrams to the other Electors; one sent to the 218 Republican Electors is copied below:

"I am Oklahoma Republican elector. The Republican electors cannot deny the election to Kennedy. Sufficient conservative Democratic electors available to deny labor Socialist nominee. Would you consider Byrd President, Goldwater Vice President, or wire any acceptable substitute. All replies strict confidence." 

Irwin received several replies (about 40) from other Electors but he was the only one to vote against his designated party. He cast his Electoral votes for Byrd and Goldwater.

In the same election 14 unpledged Electors (eight from Mississippi and six from Alabama) cast their Presidential votes for Harry Byrd. These Electors were selected by the state and not by a party. All 14 also voted for Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as Vice President.

1956 - W.F. Turner (Democrat, Alabama) 

W.F. Turner, a Democratic Elector from Alabama, voted for Walter Burgwyn Jones instead of the Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson.

Jones was formerly a circuit court judge from Turner’s hometown.

1948 - Preston Parks (Democrat, Tennessee)

Preston Parks was a member of Tennessee’s Democratic Party.

He was appointed as one of their state Electors early in the election year. Before the election, members of the Democratic Party split off and formed the States Rights party.

Parks vowed before the election to vote for Senator Strom Thurmond, the States Rights Party candidate instead of Harry Truman. Another Elector also made the same pledge but ended up voting for Truman.

Thurmond, who gathered less than 3% of the popular vote, received a total of 39 Electoral votes. These votes came from Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

1912 - Eight Republican Electors

1896 - Four People's Party Electors 

In 1896, two parties, the Democratic Party and the People’s Party, ran William Jennings Bryan as their Presidential candidate.

The two parties, though they shared a Presidential candidate, nominated different candidates for Vice President. The Democratic Party nominated Arthur Sewall and the People’s Party nominated Thomas Watson.

The People’s Party won 31 Electoral votes but four of those Electors voted with the Democratic ticket, supporting Bryan as President and Sewall as Vice President.

1872 - Sixty-Three Democratic Electors

The Democratic Party nominated Horace Greeley for President in 1872.

However, Greeley died after the November election but before the Electoral College had cast their votes. 63 of the 66 Democratic Electors refused to give their votes to a deceased candidate.

1836 - Twenty-Three Democratic Electors (Virginia) 

The Democratic Party nominated Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky as their Vice Presidential candidate.

The 23 Electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes upon learning of the allegation that he had lived with an African-American woman.

With these 23 votes missing, there was no majority in the Electoral College and the decision was deferred to the Senate.

The Senate voted Johnson as the Vice President.

1832 - Thirty-Two Electors (PA, MD) 

Two National Republican Party Electors from the state of Maryland refused to vote for Presidential candidate Henry Clay. They did not vote against Clay but simply abstained from voting.

In the same year, all 30 Electors from Pennsylvania refused to support the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Martin Van Buren. All 30 Electors cast their votes for William Wilkins.

Despite the loss of the 30 votes from Pennsylvania, Martin Van Buren was elected as the Vice President. Andrew Jackson was elected as the President, receiving over 75% of the Electoral votes.

1828 - Seven Democratic Electors (Georgia) 

In this election, seven out of the nine Electors from Georgia refused to vote for Vice Presidential candidate John Calhoun.

All seven cast their Vice Presidential votes for William Smith. Both Calhoun and Smith were from South Carolina.

Andrew Jackson won his re-election, with John Calhoun as his Vice President.

1820 - William Plummer, Sr. (Democratic-Republican, New Hampshire) 

William Plummer, Sr. was pledged to vote for Democratic-Republican candidate James Monroe. Instead, he cast his vote for John Quincy Adams, also of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Adams was not a candidate in the 1820 election. Supposedly, Plummer did not feel that the Electoral College should unanimously elect any President other than George Washington.

Other than three Electors who did not cast votes, Plummer’s vote for Adams was the only vote not cast for Monroe. 

1812 - Three Federalist Electors 

Three Electors of the Federalist Party refused to cast their votes for Federalist Vice Presidential candidate Jared Ingersoll.

All three voted instead for Elbridge Gerry, the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democratic-Republican Party.

1808 - Six Democratic-Republican Electors 

Six Electors from the Democratic-Republican Party refused to support James Madison, their party’s candidate for President.

Instead, all three voted for George Clinton for President. Clinton was the Democratic-Republican Party’s Vice Presidential candidate.
 

1796 - Samuel Miles (Federalist, Pennsylvania)

Samuel Miles, an Elector from Pennsylvania, was the first Elector to vote for a candidate other than the one he was pledged to.

Miles did not vote for Federalist candidate John Adams, but for Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate for President.

Jefferson won the Electoral College by only three votes. Miles' vote would not have given the election to Adams, but reduced the margin to just one vote.

The excerpt below is taken from a letter published in the Gazette of the United States, written by an angry voter in Pennsylvania:

"What, do I choose Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be President? No! I choose him to act, not to think."

Concerns With The Electoral College

Many observers believe the Electoral College introduces complications and potential problems into our political system. Several of these concerns are:

Disproportionate Voting Power Given to Different States
The Winner-Take-All Method of Distributing Electoral Votes
Legally Unbound Electors
House of Representatives Can Choose the President
Enforcement of a Two Party System
Presidency Can Be Won Without a Majority of the Popular Vote

Disproportionate Voting Power Given to the States

The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to the states, favoring the smaller states with more Electoral votes per person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people.

The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states. The fear was that without this power, politicians would only focus on the big states and major cities.

For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Kimberling's essay, A Brief History of the Electoral College . Kimberling is the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election Administration. This document provides a historical interpretation of the Electoral College.

Back To Top

The Winner-Take-All Method of Distributing Electoral Votes

The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.

Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.

Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not necessarily the small states, but rather they are the states that are not viewed as competitive.

Since the Electoral College allocates each state’s votes (except Maine and Nebraska) in a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that already favors them or their opponent.

As an example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they know that states like Florida and Michigan are toss-ups.

The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes.

Back To Top

Legally Unbound Electors

In 24 states, electors are not obligated by law to vote for the candidate for whom they were selected.

In the 26 states where electors are obligated by law or pledge, they can often still vote against their party without being replaced. Some states issue only minimal fines as punishment. Other states instigate criminal charges varying from a simple misdemeanor to a 4th degree felony.

This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system. The Electors from nearly half the states can vote however they wish, regardless of the popular will of the state.

In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. The founders feared the easily-swayed opinions of the public and designed the Electoral College as a protection from the easily-swayed public.

There is no reason, in this modern day, to assign this responsibility to a set of individual Electors. Thousands of votes can and have been violated by an individual Elector, choosing to act on his or her own behalf instead of on the behalf of the people.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, 156 Electors have not cast their votes for the candidates they were designated to represent.

Back To Top

House of Representatives Can Choose the President

If no candidate receives a majority of the Electoral votes, the Presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives. This could easily lead to a purely partisan battle, not an attempt to discover which candidate citizens really preferred.

This could happen if a third party or independent candidate received the Electoral votes for an entire state. It could also happen if two candidates tie with 269 votes each. In this situation, the people of the United States lose the ability to select their president.

In this same situation, the Vice President would be elected by the Senate.

If the Senate and the House of Representative reflect different majorities, so could the office of President and Vice President. This potential opposition in the Presidential office would not be good for the stability of the country or the government.

In fact, our nation used to award the Vice Presidency to the Presidential candidate with the 2nd most votes. This practice was discontinued in 1804 when the government realized that having a President and Vice President with different political opinions created governance problems and could serve as a possible reason for toppling a President, thus giving another party control of the White House.

Back To Top

Enforcement of a Two Party System

The Electoral College inadvertently enforces a two party system where third parties cannot enter the race without being tagged as “spoilers.”

Since most states distribute their Electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, a smaller party has no chance to gain support without seeming to take this support from one of the major parties.

Voters often vote for the "lesser of two evils," rather than the candidate they really feel would do the best job.

Few people will support a party that never wins, especially when they are supporting that party at the possible expense of their least favorite candidate taking power (as happened to Nader/Gore supporters in 2000 and Perot/Bush supporters in 1992).

Back To Top

Presidency Can Be Won Without a Majority of the Popular Vote

Since the Electoral College excludes candidates who do not win pluralities in any individual states from its total, a candidate can win the Electoral College without winning a majority of the popular vote of the nation.

This has happened 16 times since the founding of the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. In every one of these elections, more than half of the voters voted against the candidate who was elected.

With such a winner-take-all system, it is impossible to tell which candidate the people really prefer, especially in a close race.

Reform Options for the Electoral College

Reform Options for the Electoral College and the Election of the US President:

     Direct Vote with Plurality Rule
     Popular Vote with a Runoff Election  - 50% Threshold
     Popular Vote with a Runoff Election - 40% Threshold
     Electoral College with a Popular Vote Bonus
     Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes
     Congressional District Method
     Instant Runoff Voting

Direct Vote with Plurality Rule:

This method would require each person to cast one vote for the candidate of their choice. The candidate who receives the most votes nationwide would win the election, regardless of whether that candidate receives a majority of the votes. This option would require a constitutional amendment to be implemented and so would need to win the support of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. It would abolish the Electoral College.

This method of voting would more accurately reflect the popular will of the nation at large. Statistics have shown that more people vote when their vote has a better chance at making a difference. Since each vote would affect the final total used to determine the winner, a direct vote would eliminate the Electoral College’s ability to create non-competitive winner-take-all enclaves that essentially dilute people’s votes. Direct, popular election is simple, popular, and eliminates the potential problem of a “faithless elector” betraying their party and unfairly negating the votes of thousands of people.

A direct vote, however, would not eliminate the entrenchment of the two party system nor the “spoiler” considerations of minor parties and independent candidates. In a close race, voting for a candidate from a minor party could have the same result as it does within the current system. Also, a close election would require a nation-wide recount rather than just recounting the states in question. The final tally would not be decided until absentee ballots were received and counted and the election process could take much longer. This system be very difficult to pass as a Constitutional Amendment.

There is also the predicament that one candidate might not receive an absolute majority (>50%) of the vote. Some feel that a simple plurality is sufficient, however, if three or more candidates run, this plurality could be well under 35%. Currently, if no majority is reached within the Electoral College, the decision of electing the president is deferred to the House of Representatives where each state casts one vote, regardless of population. For example, California and Wyoming would both have the same voting power, even though California’s population is about 70 times greater than Wyoming’s. The vice president would then be elected by the Senate. The electorate loses all voting power when this happens, and hypothetically, if the House and Senate reflect different majority parties, so could the offices of president and vice president. A non-majority winner could occur in both the Electoral College election and in a direct election when a third party or independent candidate receives significant votes. See our description of the current Electoral College for more details of these procedures. With a direct vote, it is likely that a third party candidate could receive enough votes in a close race to keep both major parties below 50% and so the House of Representatives would have a strong chance of controlling the election.

Some have suggested a mandatory threshold for election, such as 40% or 50%, to protect against such scenarios. The League of Women Voters supports a direct election with a 40% threshold. This lower threshold would make a winner much more likely but would not guarantee that the winner has the support of the majority of the people. Alternatively, many have suggested a runoff election between the two most popular candidates when no candidate receives 50% (or a defined threshold) of the vote. A runoff between two candidates is designed to produce a winner with majority support. See our description of a popular vote with runoff for more details.

Back To Top

Popular Vote with a Runoff Election – 50% Threshold:

This system is similar to the pure popular vote where every person votes for one candidate and the votes are tallied on a nation-wide basis, rather than by state. The big difference is that when no candidate receives a majority of the votes (over 50%), a second runoff election takes place. In the runoff election the number of candidates would be reduced to the two most popular. Runoff elections are already used for local and statewide races in Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, South Dakota, South Carolina, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

Using a runoff election prevents the appointment of a candidate who does not have majority support, overcoming one of the biggest flaws of the pure popular vote. This method also eliminates potentially bad compromises that can result from non-partisan primary elections, often used to narrow candidates for mayoral races. The runoff also allows a voter to mark their true preference during the first round of voting without sacrificing their chance to support one of the major parties, giving independent candidates more opportunity to raise support. Also, using a runoff election eliminates the possibility of the House of Representatives being involved in the election.

Runoffs, however, can be very expensive, nearly doubling the cost of holding an election. They are also inconvenient for voters, and participation often declines in the second election, compromising the overall representation of the people. A runoff election would also delay the final decision, increasing the time between the initial vote and the announcement of a winner. This delay would require the surviving candidates to continue campaigning between the first election and the runoff. Depending on how the runoff participants are decided, there is room left for discrepancy when more than two candidates have widespread support. This happened in the French 2002 Presidential election when voters for left-of-Center parties split their votes among numerous candidates in the first round of election. This split allowed ultra-conservative Jean-Marie Le Pen to slide into the runoff with less than 17% of the vote.

Runoff elections were used in San Francisco until they recently adopted instant runoffs where both rounds of the election take place at the same time. Several other districts and states are looking at legislation that would replace their two round runoff elections with a single, instant runoff election. IRV solves many of the problems presented by the direct vote and costly runoffs while maintaining their advantages over the Electoral College. See our description of instant runoff voting for more details.

Back To Top

Popular Vote with Runoff Election with 40% Threshold :

This method is exactly like the runoff method described above, only the winner is required to receive 40% of the vote instead of 50%. If more than one candidate receives over 40% of the vote, the winner is determined by whoever has the most votes. This system attempts to eliminate costly runoffs more often while still maintaining a minimal threshold that a candidate must receive. Only one Presidential election has failed to receive a 40% majority winner among the popular vote. This alternative could easily lead to a runoff if independent or third party candidates, alone or together, received over 21% of the vote in a close race. Considering Ross Perot’s 19% in the 1992 election, and the relative popularity of mavericks like McCain, this scenario is not unlikely in the future. Otherwise, it carries the same benefits and drawbacks of the 50% runoff. The League of Women Voters supports a direct vote with a 40% threshold and runoff.

Back To Top

Electoral College with a Popular Vote Bonus:

This idea, proposed by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., retains the current Electoral College system, but also awards extra electoral votes as a bonus to the winner of the popular vote. The amount suggested by Schlesinger was 102 extra electoral votes, two for every state plus two for Washington, DC. An extra 102 electoral votes practically guarantees that the popular vote winner would be the overall winner. While technically maintaining the Electoral College, this option nearly eliminates the uneven power given to the states by its distribution of electoral votes.

However, changing the proposed 102 votes to a smaller number would allow for any desired proportion between the popular vote system and the Electoral College as it exists today. A smaller number could still give an advantage to the person with the most nationwide support while not eliminating the distribution requirement of regional support. Deciding the exact number would be very difficult to agree on, making this proposal difficult to pass.

This method does not eliminate the “spoiler” fears of third party participation, but would encourage people to campaign and vote in non-competitive states in an attempt to win the popular vote. In the 2000 election, for example, Gore had no reason to campaign in Texas because, with a winner take all allocation of electoral votes, Bush’s conservative home state was clearly going to bring in a Republican majority. However, the Democratic voters living in Texas would have had more incentive to go to the polls if the popular vote affected the election. This situation is the same for all minority parties in non-competitive states.

Back To Top

Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes :

This system has been proposed with a number of variations. A popular alternative is to split each state’s electoral votes in accordance with their popular vote percentages. This way, a candidate who wins 45% of the popular vote in a particular state would receive 45% of the electoral votes from that state, not zero electoral votes as they would today. Several ways of dividing up these votes have been recommended.

One suggestion is to maintain the actual structure of the Electoral College, but to appoint its members in proportion to their party’s popularity in each state. This would be difficult because whole electors could seldom be evenly divided into their respective percentages.

Another alternative is to keep the idea of the Electoral College, maintaining the number of electoral votes each state is allowed to cast, but to have the votes calculated as a percentage of the popular vote rather than being cast by individual electors. This would eliminate the potential problem of “faithless electors” who vote against their party. This raises the issue as to how far one should round when counting electoral votes. Some have suggested increasing the number of electoral votes by a factor of 10 or 100 to reduce the margin of error. This method would keep the same proportionality of representation as is currently in place in the Electoral College and would ease the rounding process. Others suggest rounding to whole votes, tenth votes, and a whole variety of decimal places beyond this.

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

This system would greatly increase the representation of individuals voting in each state and would encourage candidates to campaign in all states rather than just those that are competitive. Though the majority, as always, would be preferred, a candidate could still gain electoral votes by raising his minority and majority support throughout the country.

Third parties could still be “spoilers,” perhaps even more so than today. For example, in Massachusetts, the vote is split about 65/35, favoring the Democrats. In the 2000 election, 6% of the people voted for Ralph Nader and 60% voted for Al Gore. In this election, all of the electoral votes went to Al Gore, but with a proportional system, Gore would get his fair share. Specific details as to minimum thresholds required for electoral representation have varied but would be crucial to lay out in the implementation of proportional allocation.

Though this would be more representative than today’s system, it would not affect the disproportionate representation that is currently in place through the Electoral College. The Electoral College is designed to give smaller states more power so they will not be overruled by larger states. Proportional allocation, as it has been suggested, would not change this varied ratio of representation. Since it would be difficult to pass legislation that takes disproportionate voting power away from the small states (at least some small states would have to approve it), this method would be easier to implement in our current system. Depending on the details and wording of the legislation, this could also be passed without a Constitutional Amendment.

Back To Top

Congressional District Method:

A similar method, often confused with proportional allocation, is dividing electoral votes by district. Currently, each state receives two electoral votes for the state as a whole plus one electoral vote for each of its Congressional districts. Rather than giving all electoral votes to the statewide plurality winner as today, this method would only give the two statewide votes to the statewide winner and divide up the rest of the votes by giving one vote to the plurality winner in each Congressional district. This method of distribution has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has had different winners in different Congressional districts or statewide. Consequently, neither state has ever spilt its electoral votes.

This system does not address the issue of disproportionality present in the Electoral College. Using Congressional districts to determine each elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn, already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political parties and using them for the Presidential election would considerably raise the stakes of redistricting. Since these “safe zones” have strong partisan majorities, truly competitive districts would be rare. For more information see our page on the controversial process of redistricting.

Back To Top

Instant Runoff Voting:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for Presidential elections in 2 ways: through a direct, nationwide election without the Electoral College or on a state-by-state basis with the Electoral College. The direct vote alternative would be just like the popular vote option described earlier, only voters would rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. This option, nationwide, would require a Constitutional amendment and so would be difficult to pass because it would need the approval of smaller states that currently enjoy disproportionate voting power given to them by the Electoral College. However, if passed, instant runoff voting on a national scale has the potential to solve many of the current dilemmas introduced by the Electoral College as well as the problems introduced by some of the other alternatives. It would end the “spoiler” tag of third party and independent candidates and produce a majority, nationwide winner

On a state-by-state basis, instant runoff voting would ensure that the winner of the state’s electoral votes receives the majority of the votes in that state. The number of electoral votes cast by each state would not change. Individual states can adopt instant runoffs without a Constitutional amendment. Unlike proportional allocation, which could be unfair if only used in some states, instant runoff voting would not have negative consequences if only adopted by a few states. Each state’s electors would still be appointed through a winner-take-all method, but the IRV states would now be guaranteed to have a winner with majority approval. Though each state’s winner would enjoy a majority of the vote, states would still, like today, have disproportionate voting power.

Instant runoff voting allows for better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and assuring that a "spoiler" effect will not result in undemocratic outcomes. IRV also allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate without the fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that the winner enjoys true support from a majority of the voters. Third parties can build and attract exactly as many voters as they actually represent the beliefs of, because the voter has no fear of losing their vote to a "spoiler" if their second or third choice is a mainstream candidate. Plurality voting does not meet these basic requirements for a fair election system that promotes wide participation, and traditional runoff elections are costly to the taxpayer and often suffer from low voter turnout.

Instant runoff voting corrects the defects of plurality elections and two-round runoff elections, the two most widely used voting systems in the country. In plurality voting -- as used in most U.S. elections -- candidates can win with less than a majority when there are more than two candidates running for the office, as there generally are in the Presidential election. In contrast, IRV elects a majority candidate while still allowing voters to support a candidate who is not from one of the major parties.

In an instant runoff election, voters rank candidates as their first choice, second choice, third, fourth and so on. If a candidate does not receive a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoff counts are conducted, using each voter’s top choice indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place ballots is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's favorite candidate who is still in contention. Voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate as their first choice now support their second choice candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority.

Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish—their favorite candidate first, their next favorite second and so on. Voters have every incentive to vote for their favorite candidate rather than the "lesser of two evils" because their ballot can still count toward a winner if their first choice loses. There also is every reason for a voter to rank as many candidates as they want, since a voter’s lower choice will never help defeat one of their higher choices as can happen with weighted ranking methods such as the Borda count. See our web page on IRV for more descriptions and visual examples.

In the 2000 presidential election, 10 states were won with less than a 50% majority, 6 for Al Gore (44 electoral votes) and 4 for George Bush (54 electoral votes). IRV would have ensured that each of those state’s electors represented the true majority of the people.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Electoral College

Why does the Electoral College give states disproportionate voting power?
What if there is no majority winner within the Electoral College?
Is an Elector required to vote for their designated party?
Has an Elector ever voted against their designated party?
How many times has the popular vote winner differed from the winner chosed by the Electoral College?
What are the most common concerns with the Electoral College?
What options for reforming the Electoral College have been introduced?
Where can I find out more about the Electoral College?

Why does the Electoral College give states disproportionate voting power?

When the Electoral College was established, there were only 13 states and they varied greatly in size.

There was no national media or transit system and the idea of a nationwide campaign was not likely.

The country was suspicious of a national government and small states feared that a direct election would result with one of the larger states, such as New York, electing one of its "favorite sons" based solely on home state appeal.

The Electoral College was among a series of compromises which gave additional power to members of the smaller states. These compromises were necessary for everyone to feel comfortable joining the Union.

This disproportionate voting power is still present today. Smaller states like Wyoming, Alaska, and South Dakota receive more Electoral votes per person than larger states like Texas and California.

When comparing the representation of Wyoming's population in the Electoral College to that of California's population, the ratio is nearly 4:1.

Advocates of the Electoral College claim that giving small states more power encourages politicians to campaign in all states, including the small ones that would otherwise go unnoticed.

Despite these claims, politicians still do not campaign in every state. Rather than choosing the states they campaign in by size, they choose these states by competitiveness.

Since the Electoral College has a winner-take-all system for nearly every state, candidates have no reason to campaign in states that favor their competition. See Steve Hill's new book, Fixing Elections, for more information on this predicament.

Back To Top
 

What happens if there is no majority winner within the Electoral College?

A majority is not guaranteed within the Electoral College. An election with no majority winner could occur in two ways; if two candidates tie with 269 votes each or if three or more candidates receive Electoral votes.

The Constitution states that if no Presidential candidate obtains a majority of the Electoral votes, the decision is deferred to the U.S. House of Representatives. The House then elects the President, choosing between the top three candidates.

Each state receives only one vote and an absolute majority of the states (26) is required to elect the President. In this situation, Washington, DC would lose the voting power given to it by the 23^rd Amendment (since it does not have the Congressional representation given to the states).

A majority winner is not guaranteed in the House. The states could split their votes equally between 2 candidates (25 state votes each) or the votes could be split between three candidates in such a way that no candidate receives a majority.

Also, since every state only gets one vote, the Representatives from each state must come to a majority decision on which candidate to support. A state with an equal number of Representatives supporting the competing parties would not be able to cast its vote unless one Representative agreed to vote for the opposing side.

If a majority is not reached within the House by January 20 (the day the President and Vice President are sworn in), the Vice President serves as President until the House is able to make a decision.

If the Vice President has not been elected either, the Speaker of the House serves as acting President until the House is able to make a decision.

If no Vice Presidential candidate obtains a majority of Electoral votes, the decision is deferred to the U.S. Senate.

The Senate would then elect the Vice President, choosing between the two candidates receiving the highest number of Electoral votes for that office.

Every U.S. Senator is allotted one vote and an absolute majority of the votes (51) is required to elect the Vice President.

Again, the Senate could be split evenly between the top two candidates, giving each candidate 50 votes.

If no Vice Presidential candidate receives 51 Senatorial votes by January 20, the President appoints the Vice President, pending approval by Congress.

Back To Top

Is an Elector required to vote for their designated party?

The answer to this question varies considerably by state. As of 2002, only 26 states require their Electors to vote for their party's designated candidates.

These 26 states deal with "faithless Electors" in varying ways. Some states will issue a fine up to $1000; some cancel the Elector's vote and find a replacement; some press criminal charges against the "faithless Elector." These criminal charges can vary from a misdemeanor to a 4th degree felony.

The other 24 states carry no official punishment or requirements for their Electors.

A total of 156 Electors have not cast a vote for the candidate their party ran on the ballot. Check our section on "Faithless Electors" for more details on these votes.

You can find a complete, state-by-state list of requirements for members of the Electoral College here.

Back To Top

Has an Elector ever voted against their designated party?

Yes. Since the founding of the Electoral College, 156 members of the Electoral College have not cast their votes for their party's designated candidates.

71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes.

Three of the votes were not cast at all. These three Electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate.

The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector. Sometimes Electors changed their votes in large groups, such as 23 Virginia Electors acting together in 1836. Many times, these Electors stood alone in their decision.

Reasons have varied for voting against their party’s designated candidates. Some have voted differently because of personal or political reasons, others just to make a statement to the country.

As of the 2000 election, no Elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against their party’s designated candidate.

To see the names, dates, and stories of these 156 votes, visit our page on the " Faithless Electors."

Back To Top

How many times has the popular vote winner differed from the winner chosen by the Electoral College?

This has happened four times since the Electoral College was founded. The most recent of these was the 2000 Presidential election.

To read about these elections, and other complications which have occurred within the Electoral College, see our section on Controversial Elections.

Back To Top

What are the most common concerns with the Electoral College?

There are many problems which have occurred and can occur within the current system of the Electoral College.

Please view our page on Concerns With the Electoral College for more information.

Back To Top

What options for reforming the Electoral College have been introduced?

There have been many different alternative systems proposed to replace the Electoral College.

See our page on Reform Options for the Electoral College for a list of the most common reform options that have been introduced.

Where can I find out more about the Electoral College?

Visit our page of Links related to the Electoral College for more information.

The list includes official government and informational sites as well as several independent organizations who either support the Electoral College or support the reform of the Electoral College.

* Note: Copyright © 2002 The Center for Voting and Democracy - 6930 Carroll Ave. Suite 610 Takoma Park, MD 20912 - Material gathered intact from the Internet 4/29/04.

Back To Top

Back to U.S. Elections