United States Electoral College

Electoral votes allocated to each state and to the District of Columbia for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, based on populations from the 2010 Census (Total: 538)
Composite Electoral College vote tally for the 2016 presidential election. The total number of votes cast was 538, of which Donald Trump received 304 votes (), Hillary Clinton received 227 (), Colin Powell received 3 (), Bernie Sanders received 1 (), John Kasich received 1 (), Ron Paul received 1 () and Faith Spotted Eagle received 1 (). The total of electors do not meet together to vote, but rather separately meet in their individual jurisdictions.

The Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution, which forms every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, and an absolute majority of at least 270 electoral votes is required to win the election. According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, each state legislature determines the manner by which its state's electors are chosen. The number of each state's electors is equal to the sum of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives; currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives.[1][2][3] Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, provides that the District of Columbia (D.C.) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populated state (presently three).[4] U.S. territories are not entitled to any electors.[5][6]

Following the nationwide presidential election, which takes place the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, each state counts its popular votes according to that state's laws to designate presidential electors. In forty-eight states and D.C., the winner of the plurality of the statewide vote receives all of that state's electors; in Maine and Nebraska, two electors are assigned in this manner and the remaining electors are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each congressional district.[7] States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state's winner; to avoid faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the elector's pledge.[8] Each state's electors meet in their respective state capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes.[7] The results are counted by Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and House of Representatives, presided over by the vice president, acting as president of the Senate.[7][9] Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, the House turns itself into a presidential election session, where one vote is assigned to each of the fifty states. The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20.

The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote.[10]

Opponents argue that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote," in that it can thwart the will of the majority of the nation's voters by producing an outcome where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the electoral vote and thus the presidency (which happened most recently in the 2016 election), makes it easy for candidates to focus their resources disproportionately on just a few "swing states", and gives citizens in less populated states more voting power than those in more populous states.[11][12][13][14][15]




However, once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.[19][20] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:


The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[22] Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.[23] At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives with each state delegation casting one vote would decide most elections.[24]








Original planEdit



  1. Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".[33]
  2. The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".[34]

Breakdown and revisionEdit





Evolution to the general ticketEdit






Some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[38] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[39] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[38]



The Founding Fathers assumed that each elector would be elected by the citizens of a district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.


Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the original intent that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[40] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[41] However, Hamilton's untimely death in 1804 prevented him from advancing his proposed reforms any further.

Evolution of selection plansEdit

In 1789, at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland; Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina).[42] New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York's legislature deadlocked and abstained; North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.[43]


By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860.[44] Maryland was the only state using a district plan and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.[45]

Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice.[46] Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) use the district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.[47]

Three-fifths clause and the role of slaveryEdit


At the Constitutional Convention, the Electoral College was authorized by a majority of 49 votes for northern states in the process of abolishing slavery, and 42 votes for slave-holding states (including Delaware). In the event, the first 1788 presidential election did not include Electoral College votes for unratified Rhode Island (3) and North Carolina (7), nor for New York (8) which reported too late; the Northern majority was 38 to 35.[49] For the next two decades of census apportionment in the Electoral College the Three-fifths clause awarded free-soil Northern states narrow majorities of 8% and 11% as the Southern states in Convention had given up two-fifths of their slave population in their federal apportionment compromise, but thereafter, Northern states assumed uninterrupted majorities with margins ranging from 15.4% to 23.2%.[50]

While Southern state Congressional delegations were boosted by an average of one-third during each decade of this period,[51] the margin of free-soil Electoral College majorities were still maintained over this entire early republic and antebellum period.[52] Scholars further conclude that the Three-fifths clause had limited impact on sectional proportions in party voting and factional strength. The seats that the South gained from a slave bonus were evenly distributed between the parties of the period. At the First Party System (1795–1823), the Jefferson Republicans gained 1.1 percent more adherents from the slave bonus, while the Federalists lost the same proportion. At the Second Party System (1823–1837) the emerging Jacksonians gained just 0.7% more seats, versus the opposition loss of 1.6%.[53]

The Three-fifths rule of apportionment in the Electoral College eventually resulted in three counter-factual losses in the sixty-eight years from 1792–1860. With that clause, the slaveholding states gave up two-fifths of their slave population in federal apportionment, giving a margin of victory to John Adams in his 1796 election defeating Thomas Jefferson.[54] Then in 1800, historian Garry Wills argues, Jefferson's victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College because Adams would have won if only popular votes cast counted.[55] However, historian Sean Wilentz points out that Jefferson's purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.[56]


Besides the Constitutional slavery provisions prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808, and a positive requirement for states to return escaped "persons held to service",[58] legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the Electoral College was originally advocated by slave-holders in an additional effort to defend slavery. In the Congressional apportionment provided in the text of the Constitution with its Three-Fifths Compromise estimate, "Virginia emerged as the big winner [with] more than a quarter of the [votes] needed to win an election in the first round [for Washington's first presidential election in 1788]." Following the 1790 census, the most populous state in the 1790 Census was Virginia, a slave state with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.[59] "The 'free' state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes."[60] Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population.[61] Historian Eric Foner agrees that the Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise gave protection to slavery.[62]

Supporters of the Electoral College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the president who helped abolish slavery, won an Electoral College majority in 1860 despite winning less than 40 percent of the national popular vote.[63] Lincoln's 39.8%, however, represented a plurality of a popular vote that was divided among four major candidates.

Dave Benner argues that although the additional population of slave states from the Three-Fifths Compromise allowed Jefferson to defeat Adams in 1800, Jefferson's margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted.[64] He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".[64] Delegates Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized the use of a national popular vote system.[64] Likewise, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a member of Adams' Federalist Party and himself a presidential candidate in 1800, hailed from South Carolina and was himself a slaveowner.[64] In 1824, Andrew Jackson, a slaveowner from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by John Quincy Adams, an outspoken critic of slavery.[64]

Fourteenth AmendmentEdit

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for a state's representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if a state unconstitutionally denies people the right to vote. The reduction is in keeping with the proportion of people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" among other elections, the only place in the Constitution mentioning electors being selected by popular vote.




Meeting of electorsEdit



Since 1936, federal law has provided that the electors in all the states (and, since 1964, in the District of Columbia) meet "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment" to vote for president and vice president.[67][68]



Modern mechanicsEdit



Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the Federal Election Commission, the people only indirectly elect the president. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the election of 1824,[71] most states have appointed their electors winner-take-all, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions as both states use the congressional district method, Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996.[72] The ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket). The slate of electors that represents the winning ticket in a state or Washington, D.C. will vote for those two offices. Electors are nominated by a party and pledged to vote for their party's candidate. Many states require an elector to vote for the candidate to which the elector is pledged, and most electors do regardless, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting.




Population per electoral vote for each state and Washington, D.C. (2010 census)

A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the United States Congress.[73][74] The number of representatives is based on the respective populations, determined every ten years by the United States Census. Based on the 2010 census, each representative represented on average 711,000 individuals.[75]

Under the Twenty-third Amendment, Washington, D.C., is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state, but no more electors than the least populous state. Because the least populous state (Wyoming, according to the 2010 census) has three electors, D.C. cannot have more than three electors. Even if D.C. were a state, its population would entitle it to only three electors. Based on its population per electoral vote, D.C. has the second highest per capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming.[76]

Currently, there are 538 electors; based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), and Pennsylvania (20). The District of Columbia and the seven least populous states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming — have three electors each.



Candidates for elector are nominated by state chapters of nationally oriented political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some states, the electors are nominated by voters in primaries, the same way other presidential candidates are nominated. In some states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina, electors are nominated in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committee of each candidate names their respective electoral college candidates (an attempt to discourage faithless electors). Varying by state, electors may also be elected by state legislatures or appointed by the parties themselves.[77]

Selection processEdit


All states currently choose presidential electors by popular vote. The current system of choosing electors is called the "short ballot". This process has been normalized to the point that the names of the electors appear on the ballot in only eight states: Rhode Island, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Dakota.[79][80] Some states support voting for write-in candidates; those that do may require pre-registration of write-in candidacy, with designation of electors being done at that time.[81][82] Since 1996, all but two states have followed the winner takes all method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors.[83][84] Maine and Nebraska are the only states not using this method.[72] In those states, the winner of the popular vote in each of its congressional districts is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electors.[83][85] This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996. The Supreme Court previously upheld the power for a state to choose electors on the basis of congressional districts, holding that states possess plenary power to decide how electors are appointed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).

The Tuesday following the first Monday in November has been fixed as the day for holding federal elections, called the Election Day.[86] After the election, each state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment, each listing the candidates for president and vice president, their pledged electors, and the total votes each candidacy received.[87] One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the National Archivist in Washington. The Certificates of Ascertainment are mandated to carry the state seal and the signature of the governor (or mayor of D.C.).[88]


External media
  A 2016 Pennsylvania elector holds a ballot for Donald Trump (Trump's name is handwritten on the blank line). Reuters. December 19, 2016.
  A closeup of the 2016 Texas Electoral College ballot (using a format in which Trump's name is checked on the pre-printed card). The Texas Tribune. June 9, 2017.
  2016 New York State Electoral College meeting, YouTube video. Office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. December 19, 2016.




Under the Electoral Count Act (updated and codified in 3 U.S.C. § 9), each state's electors must complete six Certificates of Vote. Each Certificate of Vote must be signed by all of the electors and a Certificate of Ascertainment must be attached to each of the Certificates of Vote. Each Certificate of Vote must include the names of those who received an electoral vote for either the office of president or of vice president. The electors certify the Certificates of Vote, and copies of the Certificates are then sent in the following fashion:[92]



An elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector.[94] A "faithless elector" is one who does not cast an electoral vote for the candidate of the party for whom that elector pledged to vote. Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have laws against faithless electors,[95] which were first enforced after the 2016 election, where ten electors voted or attempted to vote contrary to their pledges. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. Altogether, 23,529 electors have taken part in the Electoral College as of the 2016 election; only 165 electors have cast votes for someone other than their party's nominee. Of that group, 71 did so because the nominee had died – 63 Democratic Party electors in 1872, when presidential nominee Horace Greeley died; and eight Republican Party electors in 1912, when vice presidential nominee James S. Sherman died.[96]

While faithless electors have never changed the outcome of any presidential election, there are two occasions where the vice presidential race outcome has been influenced by faithless electors:

  • In the 1796 election, 18 electors pledged to the Federalist Party ticket cast their first vote as pledged for John Adams, electing him president, but did not cast their second vote for his running mate Thomas Pinckney. As a result, Adams attained 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68, and Pinckney received 59, meaning Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, became vice president.[97]
  • In the 1836 election, Virginia's 23 electors, who were pledged to Richard Mentor Johnson, voted instead for former U.S. Senator William Smith, which left Johnson one vote short of the majority needed to be elected. In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election was held in the Senate between the top two receivers of electoral votes, Johnson and Francis Granger, for vice president, with Johnson being elected on the first ballot.[98]

Some constitutional scholars argued that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.[99] However, the United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that state restrictions are allowed under the Constitution. In Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), the Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), the Court held that electors must vote in accord with their state's laws.[100][101] Faithless electors also may face censure from their political party, as they are usually chosen based on their perceived party loyalty.[102]

Joint session of CongressEdit

External video
  A joint session of Congress confirms the 2016 electoral college results, YouTube video. PBS NewsHour. January 6, 2017.

The Twelfth Amendment mandates Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.[103] The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.[104] Since the Twentieth Amendment, the newly elected Congress declares the winner of the election; all elections before 1936 were determined by the outgoing House.

The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.[69] The meeting is held at 1 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.[104] The sitting vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the president pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings. The vice president and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the vice president in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the senators and representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote (normally one member of each political party). Relevant portions of the certificate of vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order.


A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection, meaning the votes from the State in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.

In 1864, all of the votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected, and in 1872, all of the votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected. [105]



After the certificates from all states are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final state of the vote. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and of the vice president-elect. The senators then depart from the House Chamber. The final tally is printed in the Senate and House journals.


Contingent presidential election by HouseEdit




Contingent vice presidential election by SenateEdit


Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election.[106] Further, the language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur,[107] although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.[108]


Deadlocked electionEdit


Current electoral vote distributionEdit

Electoral votes (EV) allocations for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.[110]
Triangular markers (  ) indicate gains or losses following the 2010 Census.[111]
EV × States States*
55 × 1 = 55 California
38 × 1 = 38     Texas
29 × 2 = 58   Florida,   New York
20 × 2 = 40  Illinois,  Pennsylvania
18 × 1 = 18   Ohio
16 × 2 = 32  Georgia,  Michigan
15 × 1 = 15 North Carolina
14 × 1 = 14  New Jersey
13 × 1 = 13 Virginia
12 × 1 = 12  Washington
11 × 4 = 44  Arizona, Indiana,  Massachusetts, Tennessee
10 × 4 = 40 Maryland, Minnesota,  Missouri, Wisconsin
9 × 3 = 27 Alabama, Colorado,  South Carolina
8 × 2 = 16 Kentucky,  Louisiana
7 × 3 = 21 Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon
= 538 Total electors
* The Twenty-third Amendment grants DC the same number of electors as the least populous state. This has always been three.

Chronological tableEdit

Number of presidential electors by state and year
1788–1800 1804–1900 1904–2000 2004–
'88 '92 '96
'12 '16 '20 '24
'32 '36
'44 '48 '52
'60 '64 '68 '72 '76
'92 '96
'04 '08 '12
'60 '64
49 Alaska 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
D.C. 3 3 3 3 3 3
50 Hawaii 3 4 4 4 4 4 4


This map shows the number of electors from each state for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Following the 2010 census, eight states lost one electoral vote and two (New York and Ohio) each lost two electoral votes; six states gained one electoral vote, Florida gained two, and Texas gained four.

Alternative methods of choosing electorsEdit

Methods of presidential elector selection, by state, 1789–1832[112]
1789 L D L A H H L A L D



Appointment by state legislatureEdit

In the earliest presidential elections, state legislative choice was the most common method of choosing electors. A majority of the state legislatures selected presidential electors in both 1792 (9 of 15) and 1800 (10 of 16), and half of them did so in 1812.[114] Even in the 1824 election, a quarter of state legislatures (6 of 24) chose electors. (In that election, Andrew Jackson lost in spite of having plurality of the popular vote and the number of electoral votes representing them,[115] but six state legislatures chose electors that overturned that result.) Some state legislatures simply chose electors, while other states used a hybrid method in which state legislatures chose from a group of electors elected by popular vote.[116] By 1828, with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, only Delaware and South Carolina used legislative choice.[115] Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832), while South Carolina continued using the method until it seceded from the Union in December 1860.[115] South Carolina used the popular vote for the first time in the 1868 election.[117]





Electoral districtsEdit

Another method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state into electoral districts. By this method, voters in each district would cast their ballots for the electors they supported and the winner in each district would become the elector. This was similar to how states are currently separated into congressional districts. However, the difference stems from the fact that every state always had two more electoral districts than congressional districts. As with congressional districts, moreover, this method is vulnerable to gerrymandering.

Proportional voteEdit

In a proportional system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.[121]

Congressional district methodEdit

There are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another has been proposed in Virginia. Under the implemented congressional district method, the electoral votes go to the winner of a plurality of the popular vote winner within each of the states' congressional districts; the statewide popular vote winner receives two additional electoral votes. While this method may result in a more proportional allocation of electors, this is not necessarily the case. For example, in 1992, George H. W. Bush won all five of Nebraska's electoral votes with 47% of the vote; in a proportional system, he would have received three and Bill Clinton and Ross Perot each would have received one. [122]


The congressional district method can more easily be implemented than other alternatives to the winner-takes-all method, in view of major party resistance to relatively enabling third parties under the proportional method. State legislation is sufficient to use this method.[124] Advocates of the congressional district method believe the system would encourage higher voter turnout and incentivize presidential candidates to broaden their campaigns in non-competitive states.[125] Winner-take-all systems ignore thousands of popular votes; in Democratic California there are Republican districts, in Republican Texas there are Democratic districts. Because candidates have an incentive to campaign in competitive districts, with a district plan, candidates have an incentive to actively campaign in over thirty states versus seven "swing" states.[126][127] Opponents of the system, however, argue candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state and cases of gerrymandering could become exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe districts as they can.[128]



Of the 43 multi-district states whose 514 electoral votes could be affected by the congressional district method, only Maine (4 EV) and Nebraska (5 EV) currently utilize this allocation method.[130] Maine began using the congressional district method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the congressional district method since the election of 1992.[131][132] Michigan used the system for the 1892 presidential election,[122][133][134] and several other states used various forms of the district plan before 1840: Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and New York.[135]

The congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, neither Maine nor Nebraska had ever split their electoral votes.[122] Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.[136] Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the congressional district method and return to the winner-takes-all system.[137] In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system;[138] the bill died in committee in March 2011.[139] Republicans had also passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to eliminate the congressional district method in Nebraska, but those bills were vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.[137]

In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so some saw this as an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Although Democrat Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008, he won only 55% of Pennsylvania's popular vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage.[140][141] The plan later lost support.[142] Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative Pete Lund,[143] RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have floated similar ideas.[144][145]

Contemporary issuesEdit



Nondeterminacy of popular voteEdit

Bar graph of popular votes in presidential elections (through 2016). Black stars mark the five cases where the winner did not have the plurality of the popular vote. Black squares mark the two cases where the electoral vote resulted in a tie, or the winner did not have the majority of electoral votes. An H marks each of two cases where the election was decided by the House; an S marks the one case where the election was finalized by the Supreme Court.

The elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive at least a plurality of the nationwide popular vote.[149] In 1824, there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, so it is uncertain what the national popular vote would have been if all presidential electors had been popularly elected. When no candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the House of Representatives and so could be considered distinct from the latter four elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors.[150] The true national popular vote was also uncertain in the 1960 election, and the plurality for the winner depends on how votes for Alabama electors are allocated.[151]


Proponents of a national popular vote point out that the combined population of the 50 biggest cities (not including metropolitan areas) amounts to only 15% of the population.[152] They also assert that candidates in popular vote elections for governor and U.S. Senate, and for statewide allocation of electoral votes, do not ignore voters in less populated areas.[153][better source needed] In addition, it is already possible to win the required 270 electoral votes by winning only the 11 most populous states; what currently prevents such a result is the organic political diversity between those states (three reliably Republican states, four swing states, and four reliably Democratic states), not any inherent quality of the Electoral College itself.[154]



Exclusive focus on large swing statesEdit

These maps show the amount of attention given to each state by the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of the 2004 election: each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice presidential candidate; each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising.[157]


Discouragement of turnout and participationEdit

Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout is largely insignificant due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states.[159] If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.[160] Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.[159]

Obscuring disenfranchisement within statesEdit


Legal scholars Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar have argued that the original Electoral College compromise was enacted partially because it enabled Southern states to disenfranchise their slave populations.[161] It permitted Southern states to disfranchise large numbers of slaves while allowing these states to maintain political clout within the federation by using the Three-Fifths Compromise. They noted that James Madison believed the question of counting slaves had presented a serious challenge, but that "the substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."[162] Akhil and Vikram Amar added:


Lack of enfranchisement of U.S. territoriesEdit

U.S. territories are not entitled to electors in presidential elections. Constitutionally, only U.S. states (per Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) and Washington, D.C. (per the Twenty-third Amendment) are entitled to electors. As a result of this restriction, roughly four million Americans in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, do not have a vote in presidential elections.[5][163] Various scholars consequently conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic.[164][165] Guam has held non-binding straw polls for president since the 1980s to draw attention to this fact.[166][167] The Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have, however, made it possible for people in U.S. territories to vote in party presidential primaries.[168][169]

Advantage based on state populationEdit


Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which gives low-population states a disproportionate number of electors per capita.[163] For example, an electoral vote represents nearly four times as many people in California as in Wyoming.[163][170] Sparsely populated states are likely to be increasingly overrepresented in the electoral college over time, because Americans are increasingly moving to big cities and because cities are growing especially in the biggest states.[163] This analysis gives a strong advantage to the smallest states, but ignores any extra influence that comes from larger states' ability to deliver their votes as a single bloc.


Disadvantage for third partiesEdit

In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.[174] However, it has been argued[who?] that the Electoral College is not a cause of the two-party system, and that it had a tendency to improve the chances of third-party candidates in some situations.[175][page needed][failed verification]


Half the population lives in these counties.

Maintenance of the federal character of the nationEdit




Enhancement of the status of minority groupsEdit


Encouragement of stability through the two-party systemEdit


Flexibility if a presidential candidate diesEdit

According to this argument, the fact the Electoral College is made up of real people instead of mere numbers allows for human judgment and flexibility to make a decision, if it happens that a candidate dies or becomes legally disabled around the time of the election. Advocates of the current system argue that human electors would be in a better position to choose a suitable replacement than the general voting public. According to this view, electors could act decisively during the critical time interval between when ballot choices become fixed in state ballots[179] until mid-December when the electors formally cast their ballots.[180] In the election of 1872, losing Liberal Republican candidate Horace Greeley died during this time interval, which resulted in disarray for the Democratic Party, who also supported Greeley, but the Greeley electors were able to split their votes for different alternate candidates.[181][182][183] A situation in which the winning candidate died has never happened. In the election of 1912, vice president Sherman died shortly before the election when it was too late for states to remove his name from their ballots; accordingly, Sherman was listed posthumously, but the eight electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast instead for Nicholas Murray Butler.[184]

Isolation of election problemsEdit

Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of any election fraud, or other such problems, to the state where it occurs. It prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. For instance, recounts occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide.[185] However, results in a single state where the popular vote is very close — such as Florida in 2000 — can decide the national election.[186]

Public opinionEdit

Most polls since 1967 have shown that a majority of Americans favor the president and vice president being elected by the nationwide popular vote, instead of by the Electoral College,[187][188] though polls taken since 2016 have shown an increase in support for keeping the Electoral College. A Gallup poll taken just after the 2016 election showed that Americans' support for keeping the Electoral College system for electing presidents had increased sharply, from 35% in 2011 to 47% in 2016. Support among Democrats for amending the Constitution in favor of using the popular vote rose from 69% to 81% and support among Republicans fell from 54% to 19%.[189] According to a Pew Research poll done in March 2018, 75% of Democrats supported moving to a popular-vote system compared to 32% of Republicans, with overall support for a popular vote at 55% versus 41% against.[190]

Efforts to abolish or reformEdit

Bayh–Celler amendmentEdit



On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to 6 to approve the proposal.[194] Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969[195] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.[196]



On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, along with Republican senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate.[199] He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.[200] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.[201]

On September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal,[202] and the proposal was quickly filibustered. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.[201] On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,[201] failing to receive the then-required two-thirds majority of senators voting.[203] A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.[204] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971.

Carter proposalEdit






Current proposals to abolishEdit

Since January 3, 2019, joint resolutions have been made proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president.[209][210] Unlike the Bayh–Celler amendment, with its 40% threshold for election, these proposals do not require a candidate to achieve a certain percentage of votes to be elected.[211][212][213]

National Popular Vote Interstate CompactEdit

Several states plus the District of Columbia have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.[214] Those jurisdictions joining the compact agree to eventually pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact will not go into effect until the number of states agreeing to the compact form a majority (at least 270) of all electors. The compact is based on the current rule in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which gives each state legislature the plenary power to determine how it chooses its electors.

Some scholars have suggested that Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires congressional consent before the compact could be enforceable;[215] thus, any attempted implementation of the compact without congressional consent could face court challenges to its constitutionality. Others have suggested that the compact's legality was strengthened by Chiafalo v. Washington, in which the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to enforce electors' pledges.[216][217]

As of 2020, 16 states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact; collectively, these jurisdictions control 196 electoral votes, which is 73% of the 270 required for the compact to take effect.[218]

See alsoEdit


  4. ^ "Twenty-third Amendment". Annenberg Classroom. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. March 29, 1961. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  5. ^ a b Murriel, Maria (November 1, 2016). "Millions of Americans can't vote for president because of where they live". PRI's The World. Retrieved September 5, 2019.
  6. ^ King, Ledyard (May 7, 2019). "Puerto Rico: At the center of a political storm, but can its residents vote for president?". USA Today. Retrieved September 6, 2019.
  7. ^ a b c "U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?". archives.gov. August 27, 2019. Retrieved November 7, 2019.
  8. ^ "Faithless Elector State Laws". fairvote.org. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020. There are 33 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (16 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast.
  9. ^ Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. November 15, 2016.
  11. ^ Lounsbury, Jud (November 17, 2016). "One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live". The Progressive. Madison, Wisconsin: Progressive, Inc. Retrieved August 14, 2020.
  19. ^ "James Wilson, popular sovereignty, and the Electoral College". National Constitution Center. November 28, 2016. Retrieved April 9, 2019.
  20. ^ "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison" (PDF). Ashland University. Retrieved July 30, 2020.
  27. ^ The Twelfth Amendment changed this to the top three candidates
  29. ^ "U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions". archives.gov. September 19, 2019.
  30. ^ "Electoral College". history.com. A+E Networks. Retrieved August 6, 2018.
  31. ^ Gore, D'Angelo (December 23, 2016). "Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote". FactCheck.org.
  32. ^ Chang, Stanley (2007). "Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation" (PDF). Harvard Journal on Legislation. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College. 44 (205, at 208).
  33. ^ a b Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 68, The Constitution Society, viewed online March 2, 2019.
  34. ^ Hamilton, Alexander. Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 29 January 1802, National Archives, Founders Online, viewed March 2, 2019.
  36. ^ a b "Federalist No 68". The Avalon Project.
  39. ^ Chief Justice Robert Jackson, Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952
  41. ^ "Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ..." founders.archives.gov.
  43. ^ "United States presidential election of 1789". Encyclopedia Britannica. September 19, 2013. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
  46. ^ Batan v. McMaster, No. 19-1297 (4th Cir., 2020), p. 5
  50. ^ Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0 p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p.454.
  52. ^ Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4571-0, p.464-5, Table 16.6, "Impact of the Three-fifths Clause on the Electoral College, 1792–1860". The continuing, uninterrupted northern free-soil majority margin in the Electoral College would have been significantly smaller had slaves been counter-factually counted as whole persons, but still the South would have been a minority in the Electoral College over these sixty-eight years.
  56. ^ Wilentz, Sean (April 4, 2019). "Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy". The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2020.
  59. ^ First Census of the United States, Chapter III in "A Century of Population Growth from the first Census", volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia's total population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633.(p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p.82.
  61. ^ Tally of Electoral Votes for the 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801, National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.
  67. ^ 3 USC 7
  71. ^ McCarthy, Devin. "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All". Fairvote. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
  72. ^ a b "The Electoral College - Maine and Nebraska". FairVote.
  75. ^ Congressional Apportionment. 2010 Census Briefs U.S. Census.
  77. ^ "How is the president elected? Here is a basic guide to the electoral college system". Raw Story. October 25, 2016.
  79. ^ "Appointment of 2020 Electors for President and Vice President of the United States". Green Papers.
  81. ^ "Write-in Votes". electoral-vote.com. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
  82. ^ "Planning to write in Paul Ryan or Bernie Sanders? It won't count in most states". The Washington Post. November 3, 2015.
  83. ^ a b "Maine & Nebraska". FairVote. Takoma Park, Maryland: FairVote. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
  85. ^ "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska". 270 to Win. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
  87. ^ "Electoral College Instructions to State Officials" (PDF). National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved January 22, 2014.
  89. ^ "Twelfth Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  93. ^ Associated Press (January 9, 2009). "Congress meets to count electoral votes". NBC News. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  95. ^ "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  96. ^ Penrose, Drew (March 19, 2020). "Faithless Electors". Fair Vote. Retrieved March 19, 2020.
  97. ^ Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin, 2004. p. 514.
  98. ^ Bomboy, Scott (December 19, 2016). "The one election where Faithless Electors made a difference". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved March 17, 2020.
  100. ^ Williams, Pete (July 6, 2020). "Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College". NBC News. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  101. ^ Howe, Amy (July 6, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Court upholds "faithless elector" laws". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  102. ^ Guzmán, Natasha (October 22, 2016). "How Are Electors Selected For The Electoral College? This Historic Election Process Decides The Winner". Bustle. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  104. ^ a b 3 U.S.C. § 15, Counting electoral votes in Congress
  106. ^ "RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001". Ncseonline.org. Archived from the original on June 28, 2011. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  107. ^ Longley, Lawrence D.; Pierce, Neal R. (1999). "The Electoral College Primer 2000". Yale University Press. New Haven, CT: 13.
  109. ^ "Senate Journal from 1837". Memory.loc.gov. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  110. ^ "Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives Based on the 2010 Census" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. December 21, 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 24, 2011. Retrieved December 21, 2010. Each state's number of electoral votes is equal to its total congressional representation (its number of Representatives plus its two Senators).
  116. ^ "Election 101" (PDF). Princeton Press. Princeton University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 2, 2014. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
  117. ^ Black, Eric (October 14, 2012). "Our Electoral College system is weird – and not in a good way". MinnPost. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
  119. ^ "Legislative Action?, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, November 30, 2000". Pbs.org. Archived from the original on January 24, 2001. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  121. ^ "FairVote". FairVote. Retrieved August 14, 2014.
  123. ^ Henderson, Nia-Malika; Haines, Errin (January 25, 2013). "Republicans in Virginia, other states seeking electoral college changes". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved January 24, 2013.
  124. ^ "Election Reform" (PDF). Dos.state.pa.us. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 1, 2008. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  126. ^ Sabato, Larry. "A more perfect Constitution[permanent dead link]" viewed November 22, 2014. (archived from the original[dead link] on 2016-01-02)
  128. ^ "The Electoral College – Reform Options". Fairvote.org. Retrieved August 14, 2014.
  131. ^ "Methods of Choosing Presidential Electors". Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  133. ^ Skelley, Geoffrey (November 20, 2014). "What Goes Around Comes Around?". Sabato's Crystal Ball. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
  134. ^ Egan, Paul (November 21, 2014). "Michigan split its electoral votes in 1892 election". Lansing State Journal. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
  140. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (September 19, 2011). "Pennsylvania Republicans Weigh Electoral Vote Changes" – via NYTimes.com.
  143. ^ Gray, Kathleen (November 14, 2014). "Bill to change Michigan's electoral vote gets hearing". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
  145. ^ Wilson, Reid (December 17, 2012). "The GOP's Electoral College Scheme". National Journal. Archived from the original on January 8, 2013. Retrieved November 22, 2014.
  146. ^ Bugh, Gary E. (2016). "Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System". In Bugh, Gary (ed.). Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge. pp. 5–18. ISBN 978-1-317-14527-1.
  148. ^ FairVote.org. "Problems with the Electoral College – Fairvote". Archived from the original on August 14, 2016.
  150. ^ "Electoral College Mischief, The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2004". Opinionjournal.com. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  152. ^ Hernandez, Carlos Felipe. "National Popular Vote – Electoral college reform by direct election of the President". archive.nationalpopularvote.com. Archived from the original on October 18, 2016. Retrieved September 14, 2016.
  154. ^ CGP Grey (November 11, 2016), Re: The Trouble With The Electoral College – Cities, Metro Areas, Elections and The United States, retrieved February 11, 2017
  159. ^ a b Nivola, Pietro (January 2005). "Thinking About Political Polarization" (139). Brookings Institution Policy Brief. Archived from the original on August 20, 2008. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  163. ^ a b c d "The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it's going to get worse". Washington Post. Retrieved November 17, 2016.
  165. ^ José D. Román. "Puerto Rico and a Constitutional Right to vote". University of Dayton. Retrieved October 2, 2007. (excerpted from: José D. Román, "Trying to Fit an Oval Shaped Island into a Square Constitution: Arguments for Puerto Rican Statehood", 29 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1681–1713, 1697–1713 (April 2002) (316 Footnotes Omitted))
  166. ^ "Guam Legislature Moves General Election Presidential Vote to the September Primary". Ballot-Access.org. July 10, 2008. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
  167. ^ "In Guam, 'Non-Binding Straw Poll' Gives Obama A Commanding Win". NPR. November 12, 2012. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
  168. ^ Curry, Tom (May 28, 2008). "Nominating, but not voting for president". NBC News. Retrieved September 5, 2019.
  169. ^ Helgesen, Elise (March 19, 2012). "Puerto Rico and Other Territories Vote in Primaries, But Not in General Election". Fair Vote. Retrieved September 7, 2019.
  174. ^ Jerry Fresia (February 28, 2006). "Third Parties?". Zmag.org. Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
  175. ^ Schmidt, Steffen W.; Shelley, Mack C.; Bardes, Barbara A (2008). "American Government and Politics Today 2008–2009". Wadsworth Publishing Company. Retrieved November 22, 2010.
  177. ^ Sabato, Larry (2007). A More Perfect Constitution (First U.S. ed.). Walker Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8027-1621-7. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
  178. ^ Majority and Plurality in U.S. Gubernatorial Elections. FairVote.org (2010-04-09). Retrieved on 2013-07-12.
  181. ^ Note: three electoral votes were still cast for Greeley despite being dead.
  182. ^ Ethan Trex (November 4, 2008). "Electoral College for dummies". CNN. Retrieved November 8, 2012. ... In 1872, though, Democrat Horace Greeley died just over three weeks after Ulysses S. Grant thumped him in the election ... electors who would have voted for Greeley simply spread their 66 votes among other Democratic candidates ... Thomas Andrews Hendricks actually came in second in the election with 42 electoral votes despite not campaigning for the presidency ...[dead link]
  186. ^ "Myths about Recounts". NationalPopularVote.com. National Popular Vote Inc. Archived from the original on November 8, 2008.
  189. ^ "Americans' Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply". news.gallup.com. December 2, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  190. ^ "The Electoral College, Congress and representation". Pew Research Center. April 26, 2018. Retrieved April 15, 2019.
  192. ^ 1968 Electoral College Results, National Archives and Records Administration
  203. ^ The Senate in 1975 reduced the required vote for cloture from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). See United States Senate website.
  208. ^ "Letters". The New York Times. March 15, 1979. Retrieved August 18, 2017.
  210. ^ Morton, Victor (January 3, 2019). "Why Democrats Want to Abolish the Electoral College—and Republicans Want to Keep It". The Washington Times. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  211. ^ Cohen, Steve (January 3, 2019). "Text – H.J.Res. 7 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice president of the United States".
  212. ^ Merkley, Jeff (March 28, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 16 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the president and vice President of the United States".
  213. ^ Schatz, Brian (April 2, 2019). "Text – S.J.Res. 17 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States".
  214. ^ "Text of the compact" (PDF). National Popular Vote.
  216. ^ Fadem, Barry (July 14, 2020). "Supreme Court's "faithless electors" decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on July 14, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  217. ^ Litt, David (July 7, 2020). "The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College. It's Up to Us to End It". Time. Retrieved August 4, 2020. After all, the same constitutional principles that allow a state to bind its electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote should allow it to bind its electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. This means that if states that combine to hold a majority of electoral votes all agree to support the popular-vote winner, they can do an end-run around the Electoral College. America would still have its clumsy two-step process for presidential elections. But the people’s choice and the electors’ choice would be guaranteed to match up every time.
  218. ^ Susan Sun Numamaker (July 9, 2020). "What Is National Popular Vote Bill/National Popular Vote Interstate Compact & Why Is It Important". Windemere Sun. Retrieved July 14, 2020.

Further readingEdit

  • Eric Foner, The Corrupt Bargain (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978 0 674 66015 1. Foner concludes (p. 6): "Rooted in distrust of ordinary citizens and, like so many other features of American life, in the institution of slavery, the electoral college is a relic of a past the United States should have abandoned long ago."
  • Tara Ross, The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule, Regnery Gateway, 2017, 320 pp., ISBN 978-1621576747. Ross concludes (p. xxii), "The Constitution's presidential election system is one of the few remaining marks of sanity in a political system that has gone awry in many other ways."
  • Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, St. Martin's Press, 2020, 304 pp., ISBN 978 1 250 22197 1), London Review of Books, vol. 42, no. 10 (May 21, 2020), pp. 3, 5–6.

External linksEdit