The Electoral College Flashcards
The number of Electoral College Votes each state receives is…
…no. of Representatives + Senators who represent the state in question.
There are __ ECVs; __ is required to win the Presidency.
538
270
What happens if no candidate gains an absolute majority of ECVs?
The HoR decides the President from the three candidates with the most ECVs. Each state has one vote and a majority of votes (26/50) is required (balloting is continued until a candidate gains 26 votes).
The Senate decides the VP from the two VP-candidates with the highest no. of ECVs; the winner requires an absolute majority (51/100) of votes. The Constitution did not necessitate the need for the President and Vice-President to be on the same ticket as they are traditionally done in modern times, hence the Constitution’s delineation of deciding both the President and the VP.
All states bar two have used a ‘winner-takes-all’ system where the candidate with the most votes in the state gains all of the ECVs; name the two states that have opted for a different way of assigning electors to the candidates + state roughly how this alternative systems works.
Nebraska and Maine
These two states split some of their ECVs according to who won the popular vote in the whole state and the rest of the ECVs are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote in each congressional district (i.e. the area that Representatives from the HoR represent).
State two advantages of retaining the Electoral College system + state some counter-arguments to each one.
(include ratios between the ECVs and populations of the most populous states and the four POTUS elections from 1992 onwards that are counter-examples to one of the arguments)
- It preserves the voices of smaller-population states; whilst California dwarfs Wyoming in terms of ECVs (53 vs 3 respectively, so California has 17.6 times more ECVs), if a popular vote system was established, California would have roughly 66.4 times more influence than Wyoming! This allows smaller states to feel as if they have enough of a say in choosing the nation’s commander-in-chief, which is the cornerstone of federalism (i.e. each state having a sufficient amount of influence over the federal gov’t).
- > However, some argue that that this is too much of an overrepresentation of smaller states, which can lead to the result being fairly arbitrary. Another way of looking at this is this; according to 2012 statistics, California’s ratio of population to ECVs is just under 700,000 whilst Wyoming’s ratio is just under 200,000 (so therefore 700,000 Californian votes is roughly equivalent to 200,000 Wyomingite votes).
- Due to the use of FPTP in 48 states, the EC system tends to promote a two-horse race, which means there is a high chance of the winning candidate gaining an absolute majority of the popular vote, giving him/her a sufficient mandate to represent and unite the nation.
- In addition, unlike a legislative body, a President is one elected person therefore introducing a proportional system is less feasible as you can’t have a 45% Dem 36% Green 5% Lib etc President but you can have a legislative body that accommodates this diverse set of results.
- > However, this hasn’t always happened. In fact, in the past seven elections, 4 elections have resulted in the POTUS-elect not having > 50% of the popular vote; these were 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016. The latter two are especially important as the two POTUS-elects (Bush and Trump) had fewer votes than the candidate from the other main party.
Discuss how the present EC system is unfair to third parties.
(include why tactical voting occurs + what it is, an example of FPTP punishing candidates with thinly spread support and name the only third party candidate in history that won ECVs and explain his strategy for doing so.)
- It’s unfair to third parties; the FPTP system used in 48 states encourages tactical voting (e.g. a supporter of the Green Party is likely to vote for the Democrats instead of the Greens; this is because Green Party supporters despise the Republican Party’s free-market and social conservative policies and - whilst they may also resent the Democrats - they resent the Democrats less than the Republican party and since voting for the Democratic candidate will increase the chances of someone beating the Republican candidate, they will vote for the Democratic candidate) and therefore third party candidates are unlikely to gain footholds.
- Furthermore, third-party candidates that do not appeal to a particular region of the US are disadvantaged by the fact that FPTP punishes candidates whose support is both comparatively low (when compared to the two main parties) and spread out across the USA. For example, Ross Perot in ‘92 won 18.9% of the pop. vote but failed to win a single ECV (in all states bar one he won > 10% of the vote, but also in all states bar one he won < 30% of the vote, which demonstrates how having support spread out amongst the states can be a disadvantage).
- Third party candidates whose support is concentrated w/ in a particular region tend to fare better (but this strategy still makes it difficult for a third party candidate to win the Presidency as the two main parties tend to have a broader range of safe-states at their disposal, i.e. the mainstream parties’ support is not restricted to one particular region), e.g. George Wallace in ‘68 was a white supremacist and thus had most of his support concentrated in the deep south; he won 45 ECVs, the only third party candidate in history to win ECVs.
Give two more disadvantages of the present EC system other than FPTP distorting the results and the over-representation of smaller states and state why these (frankly rather arcane and ridiculous rules) are very difficult to resolve.
(Include examples of when these rules came into play).
- There’s the opportunity for electors (those who vote on behalf of the states) to vote against the candidate that the state is officially voting for; these are called ‘rogue’ electors, the last time this happened was in the 2004 election where one elector mistakenly voted for John Edwards for Vice President AND President. However, never has the result of an election been down to rogue electors elected the losing candidate.
- If there is no candidate winning an absolute majority of ECVs, then it is entirely possible for the HoR to vote for a Presidential candidate from one party and a VP candidate from another; the EC has only been deadlocked in the 1800 and 1824 elections, so this potential problem is yet to have happened in the modern era where it is tradition for there to be a POTUS + VP on the same ticket.
As these are enumerated in the Constitution, a Constitutional amendment is required to repeal them. As constitutional amendments are very difficult to succesfully pass, it is unlikely that these procedures will be scrapped.
Apart from the rogue elector in 2004, state two examples of rogue electors that could’ve had a significant impact on the election.
1960: All of Mississippi’s electors and the majority of Alabama’s electors voted for Harry Byrd instead of JFK; this was the first (and only) time in recent-(ish) times where all of the electors of a state had voted for somebody else (although JFK won by a landslide, it it still discomforting that this happened).
2000: Barbara Lett-Simmons was an elector for DC. She abstained when she should have voted for Al Gore; she did this because Gore wasn’t in favour for granting DC Congressional representation, which is what Lett-Simmons wanted. This was significant as the race between Gore and W Bush was very close (271 vs 266) and Lett-Simmons’ protest (if some minor states voted differently) could have given W Bush a(nother) false victory.
What does CDS stand for, how does it work and evaluate the case for and against using it instead of the EC.
CDS = Congressional District System
It’s the method used for delegating electors to who they should vote for in Maine and Nebraska; the electoral votes are distributed according to who wins a plurality of votes in each congressional district (so therefore a state may grant multiple candidates ECVs). The remaining two ECVs are given to the candidate who wins the pop. vote in the whole state.
This system may increase turnout (which is required for a healthy democracy) as some states may have many Republican-leaning districts and few Democrat-leaning districts, which would imply that - if FPTP is used - the state would be a safe Republican state and therefore turnout will be low in the state. Under CDS, Democrat supporters are more incentivised to turnout.
This system should also retain the ‘winner’s bonus’ aspect of the EC as it is unlikely that third party candidates would be able to gain footholds as this system is still essentially FPTP.
However, due to the prevalence of Gerrymandering, it is likely that this system is unlikely to energise voters to vote (as it is likely that safe districts will outnumber ‘swing districts’).
Explain how a proportional system - in place of the EC - would work and evaluate its merits/demerits.
A proportional system constitutes the delegation of ECVs according to the popular vote in each state (i.e. if the Dems get 45% of the pop. vote, they get roughly 45% of the ECVs).
However, as the Presidency is operated by one elected official (unlike a legislature which is made up of many elected officials) it is often better to have a system which almost ensures that one candidate gains over 50% of the pop. vote as it is impossible for one person to represent a multitude of political views (unlike a legislature) which is what proportional systems encourage.
Explain how a direct election system - in place of the EC - would work and evaluate its merits/demerits.
A direct election entails a nation-wide popular vote to determine who wins the Presidency.
This would energise voters to turnout as there is less need to tactically vote (and therefore they can vote for their first preference candidate without fear of the vote being wasted).
However, as the Presidency is operated by one elected official (unlike a legislature which is made up of many elected officials) it is often better to have a system which almost ensures that one candidate gains over 50% of the pop. vote as it is impossible for one person to represent a multitude of political views (unlike a legislature) which is what proportional systems such as direct election encourage.
In 2016, Clinton gained __ more of the popular vote than Trump, but Trump gained __ more ECVs than his rival.
_ Republican electors voted for other Republican figures and _ Democratic electors voted for other Democratic figures.
In 2016, Clinton gained 2.8 million more of the pop vote than Trump, but Trump gained 74 more ECVs than his rival.
2 Republican electors voted for other Republican figures and 5 Democratic electors voted for other Democratic figures.
