The Electoral College
Learning Objective 5:
Describe how the electoral
college works and reflects the
concepts of proportional
representation and tyranny of
the majority.
Rationale For System



Poor Communication---common people would lack essential info
Desire to have best people to select President. Fear that common
people would be swayed by demagogues
A compromise by those who wanted direct election and those who
wanted Congress to elect President
Allotment of electoral votes






Each state has as many votes as it has members of Congress
Minimum #: 3
Wash D.C. has 3 votes (Amendment 23)
Total of 538 votes
California has highest #: 55
Implications of Movement from “Rust Belt” to “Sun Belt”. Increasing
representation in latter.
Selection of Electors


Each party develops a “slate” of electors prior to
election
Typically loyal party members
Winning of Electoral Votes


Candidates with most popular votes (only a plurality
is needed) wins all of that state’s electoral votes
(winner-take-all)---concentration of campaigning in
large, competitive states. Emphasis on swing states,
e.g., FL, OH, PA, MI
Electors meet in respective state capitals in December
to cast ballots
Winning the election
Learning Objective 5:
 Describe how the
electoral college
works and reflects
the concepts of
proportional
representation and
tyranny of the
majority.


Majority of electoral votes
needed to win (270)
If no candidate has the
majority (this is what the
Founders thought would
happen most of the time. They
did not anticipate the
development of the two-party
system):




A. House selects President
from among top 3
B. Each state has 1 vote
C. Done in 1800 and 1824
D. Senate selects V.P. from
among top two candidates
Criticisms

President can be elected w/ only a plurality, rather
than a majority, of popular votes, esp. w/ presence
of strong 3rd party candidates.

Possibility of minority President (1824, 1876, 1888,
2000). This is due to winner-take-all feature that distorts
margins of victory within states

“Faithless electors”: no fed. Law requires electors to
vote the way they are “supposed” to vote
Criticisms (Cont’d)



Small states proportionately overrepresented: Wyoming has 3
electoral votes for 500,000 people (1 vote/166,000 people);
California has 55 votes for 33 million people (1 vote/600,000
people)---small states will not pass Constitutional amemdment
Small states ridiculously overrepresented if election goes to the
House, e.g., Wyoming would have same voting power as California
Inhibits development of 3rd parties, e.g., Perot won 19% of the vote
in 1992, but won 0 electoral votes since he did not win any states
Alternatives




Direct Election: Each person’s vote would count as
much as every other person’s vote (“one man, one
vote.”)
District System (candidate who wins a congressional
district wins that district’s electoral vote) Overall winner
in a state would get the two bonus electoral votes by
virtue of its senate seats
Proportional system (candidate gets same % of
electoral votes as popular votes)
Keep electoral votes but abolish the electors
themselves
Why has electoral college not been
abolished?

Tradition/reluctance to tamper with Constitution

Difficulties in amending Constitution

Opposition from the overrepresented small states

Opposition from urban racial minorities: concentration of
racial minorities in swing states give them clout to “tip
the scales” towards their favored candidates under the
present system
Congressional Redistricting Cases

Baker v. Carr (TN; 1962)- “One man,
one vote”


Wesberry v. Sanders (GA;1964)


State legislative districts
Congressional Dist. Pop. Were greatly
unequal
Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Racially Gerrymandered Dist. (NC)