Political Parties And Electoral College History

The American Anomaly: Why the Electoral College Endures 

The United States' method for electing its president remains a subject of intense debate. Fierce political contests, notably the 2016 election, consistently reignite discussions about the system. Despite widespread commentary, this complex arrangement is not well understood by much of the American public. People frequently ask what it is, how it originated, and why its existence inspires such passionate defence and opposition. This article explores this important and contentious American tradition. It will delve into the system's mechanics, its historical foundations, and the ongoing arguments surrounding its future. Understanding this institution is crucial to understanding the unique nature of American democracy and the powerful forces that have shaped it for over two centuries. The journey reveals a system born of compromise and controversy. 

The Electoral College Explained 

America's method for choosing its president is established through a constitutional framework. While the actual phrase 'Electoral College' does not appear in the Constitution, the document does require every state to choose 'electors' tasked with choosing the president. For this purpose, 'college' simply designates a body of individuals united by a shared objective or duty. The name itself began to appear during the first few decades of the 1800s. It describes this body of citizens that their states selected to submit ballots for the nation's chief executives. This distinctive voting apparatus was born from a variety of political anxieties, with a key motivation being the equilibrium of influence between the Northern and Southern states. 

A Modern Three-Step Process 

To comprehend the system's origins, one must first understand its contemporary function. Its operation has changed considerably from the original concept. Today, how a president is chosen unfolds in a multi-stage process that begins long before election day. It involves political parties, voters, and a select group of individuals known as electors. This modern procedure, while based on constitutional principles, would be largely unrecognisable to the nation's founders. It reflects two centuries of political development, constitutional amendments, and shifting public expectations about democracy. The current system operates as follows, turning the nationwide popular vote into a state-by-state contest. 

Stage One: Parties Nominate Electors 

The first step in this process involves the country's political parties. Within each state, every party nominates a list of potential electors. These individuals, often chosen at state party conventions or by party leaders, commit their support to the presidential and vice-presidential nominees from their specific party. Should their party's ticket win the state's popular tally, these designated elector-candidates will officially become the state's electors. This initial stage is a partisan activity. It ensures that the people casting the formal ballots are loyal to the victorious candidate, setting the stage for the next phase of the election. 

Stage Two: The People Vote 

During the November general election, eligible American citizens cast ballots. While the ballot lists the names of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, voters are not directly electing them. Instead, they are selecting an entire group of electors who are committed to support that particular ticket. The candidate for president who garners the highest number of individual ballots in the state's overall tally—the popular vote—usually captures the entirety of that state's electoral ballots. This winner-takes-all system is used in 48 jurisdictions plus the District of Columbia. It transforms millions of individual ballots into a collection of electoral ballots for the statewide winner. 

The Proportional Exception: Maine and Nebraska 

Not all states adhere to the winner-takes-all method. Two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which follow a proportional distribution method for allocating their electoral ballots. This approach offers a different model for translating the popular will into electoral outcomes. In these states, an electoral ballot is granted to the candidate who prevails in the majority of votes in each congressional district. The remaining two electoral ballots, corresponding to the state's two senators, go to the contender who is successful from the overall state popular tally. This method can result in a state's electoral ballots being divided among different candidates. It provides a potential path for a candidate to obtain electoral ballots even without winning the entire state, making every congressional district a potential battleground. 

Calculating a State's Electoral Power 

A state's quantity of electoral ballots comes from its congressional delegation. The formula is simple. A state's total is its number of members in the House of Representatives along with its two senators. (New York is served by 27 House members plus two senators, which is the basis for its 29 electoral ballots.) The sum from all states creates a nationwide total equaling 538 electoral ballots. This figure includes three electors for the District of Columbia, granted by the 23rd Amendment. Any contender who achieves 270 electoral ballots when polls close is deemed the projected winner. This number represents the threshold for victory in a system that balances population with state representation. 

The Electors' Formal Vote 

Weeks after the general election, the process moves to its formal climax. On the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, the winning electors convene in their individual states. There, they formally submit ballots for the nation's top two offices. Each elector's action counts as one electoral ballot. Following the 2016 election, for instance, the ticket representing the Democrats secured the most individual ballots in New York. Consequently, all 29 of the elector-candidates previously chosen by the state's Democratic Party met and submitted their votes for Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, her vice-presidential choice. These votes are then recorded on a Certificate of Vote, which is sent to Congress for the final count. This meeting is a crucial, though often overlooked, step in finalising the election's outcome. 

The 'Faithless Elector' Phenomenon 

Even though electors make a promise to back specific candidates, no constitutional requirement binds them to that promise. An elector who defies their commitment to support a certain nominee is called a 'faithless elector'. While extremely rare, this phenomenon has occurred throughout American history. The 2016 election saw a record number of faithless electors in modern times, with seven electors defecting from their pledged candidates. Two Republican electors and five Democratic electors submitted ballots for other individuals. However, a faithless elector's vote has never changed a presidential elections final result. Their actions remain a historical curiosity rather than a decisive political force. 

States Reinforce Elector Pledges 

In reaction to the possibility of faithless electors, a number of states have passed legislation designed to deter or cancel these broken promises. As of 2024, thirty-three states and Washington D.C. have laws that require electors to vote as they have pledged. These laws range from imposing fines to providing for the removal and replacement of a faithless elector. The legality of these measures was affirmed in a 2020 Supreme Court case, Chiafalo v. Washington. The court ruled unanimously that states have the authority to penalise or remove electors who do not vote for the candidate who won the most votes from the public within their state. This decision significantly strengthened states' control over their electors. 

A System Forged in Compromise 

The system has undergone substantial transformation since its 1787 creation. The procedure detailed previously would be foreign to America's founders, since they envisioned it as a more deliberative process with less direct public involvement. The Constitution's framers had not foreseen the emergence of partisan groups. The method they created was a compromise between electing the president by a nationwide popular tally and a vote in Congress. Delegates from states with large slave populations particularly feared a direct popular vote. They worried that the more populous northern states, with more eligible voters, would dominate presidential elections and threaten the institution of slavery. The resulting system was a complex political bargain. 

Slavery's Shadow on the Constitution 

During the Constitution's creation, James Madison from Virginia spoke against a popular vote on a national scale for the president, arguing that the South would find it unacceptable. The reason was clear: the North's larger quantity of white men eligible to vote would give it a decisive advantage. At the time, roughly a third of the South's population consisted of enslaved people who could not vote. To quiet these concerns, Madison suggested an electoral framework. This system enabled states to count a fraction of their enslaved population in their total numbers, which gave them a greater portion of electoral power than they were otherwise entitled to. The eventual adoption of the 'three-fifths compromise' gave states the ability to count a portion of their enslaved population when calculating their electoral weight. 

The Tumultuous Election of 1800 

The flaws of the original system became undeniable during the presidential race of 1800. An electoral tie occurred involving Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, his running mate. Because electors could not specify which ballot was intended for the presidency, and which was for the vice presidency, both men received an identical number of votes from electors. Backers of Burr in Congress attempted to make him president instead of Jefferson, leading to a constitutional crisis. Congress's lower chamber ultimately named Jefferson the victor several weeks later. This chaotic election exposed the system's vulnerability to partisan manipulation and demonstrated an urgent need for constitutional change. 

The Twelfth Amendment's Critical Change 

In reaction to the 1800 debacle, the nation amended its Constitution in 1804. The Twelfth Amendment now compels electors to cast a single vote specifically for president and a separate one for the second office. This change ensured that a tie between a presidential candidate and their running mate could not happen again. The amendment also clarified the procedure if no candidate receives a majority. In such a case, it is the House of Representatives that chooses the president from the top three candidates, and the Senate chooses the vice president. 

Mismatches of the Vote 

A major criticism of this electoral method is that it can produce a winner who did not win the nationwide popular tally. This has happened five times throughout American history. The first instance was in 1824, when the presidency was decided in the House of Representatives, giving John Quincy Adams the win despite Andrew Jackson winning both the popular and electoral vote pluralities. The other occurrences were in 1876 with Rutherford B. Hayes, in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison, in 2000 with George W. Bush, and in 2016 with Donald Trump. These elections fuel arguments that the system is undemocratic and can delegitimise the presidency. 

The Case of 2016 

The 2016 election brought the issue into sharp focus for a new generation. Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by securing 304 electoral votes against her 227, even though Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more individual ballots nationwide. Trump's victory was achieved by narrow margins in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. He won these states by a combined total of fewer than 80,000 votes. This outcome, where a candidate can win the presidency while not winning the national vote count so substantially, intensified calls for the dismantling of this electoral method and sparked a nationwide conversation about electoral fairness. 

The Case for the Electoral College 

Advocates for the existing Electoral College state it is a vital political protection for federalism that ensures states matter as separate political bodies. The setup compels presidential hopefuls to build widespread, support across different regions, since no single area commands the 270 electoral ballots needed for victory. Adopting a nationwide popular voting method would motivate candidates to cater to nationwide interests while ignoring local ones. This, supporters argue, would damage the nation's political fabric. They see this particular voting framework as a bulwark that ensures the states remain distinct and important political entities within the union, preserving a core principle of the nation's founding. 

The Argument for Abolition 

Critics say the Electoral College is an outdated system that is fundamentally undemocratic. Its most glaring flaw is the possibility for the candidate with the most votes from the public to lose the presidency. Detractors also maintain that the framework can depress voter turnout. Because electoral power is linked to total residents, not to the number of citizens who can vote, states lack motivation to expand voting access. Furthermore, it violates the principle of 'one person, one vote'. Voters in states with lower populations have outsized voting power compared to individuals in more populous states. For instance, an electoral ballot in Wyoming corresponds to far fewer people than one in California, which provides more influence to rural voters compared to city dwellers. 

The Path to Reform 

Dismantling this system would require a constitutional amendment. This demands the consent of two-thirds of Congress plus ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures. This route for reform appears unfeasible in the current partisan political environment. The arrangement advantages states with smaller populations, many of which are reliably Republican, giving them little incentive to approve a change that would diminish their influence. The high bar for amending the Constitution makes direct abolition a near-impossible task. As a result, reformers have sought alternative methods to bypass the system's perceived flaws without formally changing the Constitution. 

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 

To find a way around this problem, reform advocates created what is known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This proposed agreement, or NPVIC, would have participating states and Washington D.C. grant their electoral votes to the candidate who secures the highest number of votes nationwide, regardless of the outcome in their own state. The agreement only becomes active when a sufficient number of states sign on to collectively represent a majority of electoral ballots, which is 270 votes. This clever workaround aims to ensure the presidency goes to the winner of the national popular total without needing a constitutional amendment. 

An Enduring Legacy 

This electoral system remains a highly controversial feature of the US political system. Born from a complex and fraught compromise over enslavement and the rights of states, it has survived numerous challenges and calls for its abolition. Although it has undergone changes, particularly with the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, its core structure remains intact. The system continues to shape presidential campaigns, forcing candidates to focus on a handful of swing states rather than pursuing the nationwide popular vote. Whether this system will evolve again in the face of modern democratic ideals and reform efforts like the NPVIC is a question that will continue to define American politics.