Politics 101: The Electoral College
Happy Election Day!
What? Why are you looking at me like that? Sure, I remember that whole big thing last month. But, in one of the quirks of our system, the next president was not actually elected by voters on November 4th. Instead, Barack Obama will be elected president today, December 15, 2008, by electors around the country.
Ah, the Electoral College. So often maligned. So often subject to calls for its dissolution. But, I swear, it's just misunderstood.
Here's how it works: every four years, a slate of electors is chosen by each party. They are often party loyalists, chosen as a reward for years of public service. This year, while John McCain and Barack Obama were on ballots across the country, people weren't directly voting for either one of them; they were actually choosing between the slates of electors that represented each candidate. The slate with the most votes in each state on Election Day was then declared the winner and sent on to the state Capitol to cast ballots for president today. These votes will then be tabulated by Congress on January 6, 2009. There are 538 electors in total; it takes a majority of their votes (270) to be elected President.
Most states use a winner-take-all system that awards all of their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states in the country that allocate their Electoral College votes based on the statewide popular vote and the winner in each of the state's congressional districts. That's how Barack Obama was able to pick up an electoral vote out of Nebraska's second congressional district, even though the state as a whole went for John McCain.
Despite what the name implies, the Electoral College doesn't actually convene in one place. The Constitution requires each state's electors to meet within their respective states; the Founders feared that a gathering of all of the electors in one place would leave them vulnerable to corruption and the whims of public opinion. They were originally intended to be free agents, exercising independent and nonpartisan judgment in the country's best interest. However, electors today largely rubber stamp their party's nominee for president, despite not being constitutionally required to do so. Last minute switches are rare - since 1789, only ten electors have voted for a presidential candidate other than the one they were pledged to. However, this hasn't stopped 25 states from passing laws binding electors to the candidate they were selected to cast a ballot for.
Ever wonder how each state got assigned its number of electoral votes when John King was playing with his magic map on CNN? It's determined by the population size of the state. Each state receives a number of electors equal to their total members in Congress - all House members, plus two senators. Therefore, the most populous state in the country, California, has 55 EC votes, while a smaller state like Vermont only has 3.
You're probably asking why all of this is necessary: shouldn't the president be the person that receives the most votes, period? This was the argument in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush. And, in fact, there is a substantial movement out there to abolish the EC and enact the popular vote standard. However, this is no easy feat - it would require a constitutional amendment or the adoption of the National Popular Vote Act by a majority of states. This is generally opposed by smaller states that feel their influence would decrease in favor of more populous states like California and New York. Just think - would John McCain have spent part of his final days before the election in New Hampshire if we decided the presidency by the popular vote? Unlikely - but in our current system, those four electoral votes could have been decisive.
So, as our electors meet today to elect Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States, I'd like to wrap this up in a much more harmonious way than I could ever manage, the classic Schoolhouse Rock guide to the Electoral College:
What? Why are you looking at me like that? Sure, I remember that whole big thing last month. But, in one of the quirks of our system, the next president was not actually elected by voters on November 4th. Instead, Barack Obama will be elected president today, December 15, 2008, by electors around the country.
Ah, the Electoral College. So often maligned. So often subject to calls for its dissolution. But, I swear, it's just misunderstood.
Here's how it works: every four years, a slate of electors is chosen by each party. They are often party loyalists, chosen as a reward for years of public service. This year, while John McCain and Barack Obama were on ballots across the country, people weren't directly voting for either one of them; they were actually choosing between the slates of electors that represented each candidate. The slate with the most votes in each state on Election Day was then declared the winner and sent on to the state Capitol to cast ballots for president today. These votes will then be tabulated by Congress on January 6, 2009. There are 538 electors in total; it takes a majority of their votes (270) to be elected President.
Most states use a winner-take-all system that awards all of their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states in the country that allocate their Electoral College votes based on the statewide popular vote and the winner in each of the state's congressional districts. That's how Barack Obama was able to pick up an electoral vote out of Nebraska's second congressional district, even though the state as a whole went for John McCain.
Despite what the name implies, the Electoral College doesn't actually convene in one place. The Constitution requires each state's electors to meet within their respective states; the Founders feared that a gathering of all of the electors in one place would leave them vulnerable to corruption and the whims of public opinion. They were originally intended to be free agents, exercising independent and nonpartisan judgment in the country's best interest. However, electors today largely rubber stamp their party's nominee for president, despite not being constitutionally required to do so. Last minute switches are rare - since 1789, only ten electors have voted for a presidential candidate other than the one they were pledged to. However, this hasn't stopped 25 states from passing laws binding electors to the candidate they were selected to cast a ballot for.
Ever wonder how each state got assigned its number of electoral votes when John King was playing with his magic map on CNN? It's determined by the population size of the state. Each state receives a number of electors equal to their total members in Congress - all House members, plus two senators. Therefore, the most populous state in the country, California, has 55 EC votes, while a smaller state like Vermont only has 3.
You're probably asking why all of this is necessary: shouldn't the president be the person that receives the most votes, period? This was the argument in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush. And, in fact, there is a substantial movement out there to abolish the EC and enact the popular vote standard. However, this is no easy feat - it would require a constitutional amendment or the adoption of the National Popular Vote Act by a majority of states. This is generally opposed by smaller states that feel their influence would decrease in favor of more populous states like California and New York. Just think - would John McCain have spent part of his final days before the election in New Hampshire if we decided the presidency by the popular vote? Unlikely - but in our current system, those four electoral votes could have been decisive.
So, as our electors meet today to elect Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States, I'd like to wrap this up in a much more harmonious way than I could ever manage, the classic Schoolhouse Rock guide to the Electoral College:
Labels: politics 101
posted by Justine at 6:17 PM
3 Comments:
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.
Another 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.
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 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, 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
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.
Small 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 concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas (62% Republican),
● New York (59% Democratic),
● Georgia (58% Republican),
● North Carolina (56% Republican),
● Illinois (55% Democratic),
● California (55% Democratic), and
● New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
● New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
● Georgia — 544,634 Republican
● North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
● Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
● California — 1,023,560 Democratic
● New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
Under a national popular vote, a Democratic presidential candidate could no longer write off Kansas (with four congressional districts) because it would matter if he lost Kansas with 37% of the vote, versus 35% or 40%. Similarly, a Republican presidential candidate could no longer take Kansas for granted, because it would matter if he won Kansas by 63% or 65% or 60%. A vote gained or lost in Kansas is just as important as a vote gained or lost anywhere else in the United States.
Although no one can predict exactly how a presidential campaign would be run if every vote were equal throughout the United States, it is clear that candidates could not ignore voters in any state. The result of a national popular vote would be a 50-state campaign for President. Any candidate ignoring any particular state would suffer a political penalty in that state.
Post a Comment
<< Home