Thursday, March 28th, 2024
Categories
Featured News

An Expert Look at the Electoral College

Dr. Adam Lawrence is currently writing a book on the American presidency.

Very few times in the history of the United States has the winner of the popular vote not claimed victory in a presidential election. When such an event does take place, increased discussion and interest in the Electoral College is to be expected.

Enter Dr. Adam Lawrence.

Lawrence is an associate professor of government and political affairs at Millersville University, as well as the director of the Walker Center for Civic Responsibility & Leadership. His teaching and research interests include the presidency, political parties, campaigns and elections, the politics of race and ethnicity, and research methods. In his 13th year at MU, Lawrence is currently on sabbatical to write a book on the American presidency titled, “Controversies in Presidential Leadership: Exploring the Limits of Presidential Power.”

In the midst of increased discussion about the Electoral College, Lawrence can provide an expert look at this system of American politics.

What is the Electoral College and how does it function?
The Electoral College is the mechanism devised by the Framers of the Constitution for selecting the president and vice president of the United States. It is outlined in the Constitution and was amended by the 12th and 23rd Amendments. To be elected president, a candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes cast, 270 electoral votes. According to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, each state has “a Number of Electoral votes equal to whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” For example, Pennsylvania has two Senators and 18 Representatives, and a total of 20 electoral votes.

Who makes up the Electoral College?
The college consists of electors, or individuals, who have the authority to cast an electoral vote for the presidential candidate they pledged to support. Soon after ratification of the Constitution, the appointment of electors became heavily influenced by the political parties. In many states, including Pennsylvania, the legislature has delegated the task of appointing electors to the state party organizations. In 2016, the Pennsylvania Republican Party selected its slate of 20 electors who will have the opportunity to cast their electoral votes for Donald Trump since he won the state popular vote. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party also appointed its own slate of 20 electors who pledged their support to Hillary Clinton. If she had won the state’s popular vote, those 20 electors would have had the opportunity to cast their electoral votes for Clinton. Remember, the electoral vote in each state is equal to the number of Senators in each state plus the number of Representatives. The number of Representatives in each state is based on a state’s population, giving states with the largest populations more electoral than less populous states. But the smallest of the small states also have an advantage, since even the state with the smallest population has two Senators.

Why was it established?
In the design of the Electoral College, we can see the product of two hard-fought compromises regarding who should select the president and how the interests of small and large states can be balanced.Some of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention thought the people should choose their president. Others more doubtful of the wisdom of the people thought the legislature should select the president. As a compromise, the Framers created an Electoral College which provides for indirect popular selection of the president. The people participate in a popular vote, but it is the electors who cast the electoral votes that determine the outcome. The Framers hoped that the electors would be among the best educated members of society and would be willing to calmly and rationally weigh the arguments in favor of all the candidates running for office. As such, the Electoral College was originally designed to act as a buffer between the popular passions of the people and the actual selection of the president. It was designed to give the people some input, but not the final say. But the Electoral College never functioned according to the vision of the Framers. Today, the parties select the electors, which means that the individuals who are chosen to serve as electors are the most partisan, least objective individuals one can possibly imagine. The odds that any of these electors might be willing or able to calmly, rationally consider the merits of the candidates are vanishingly small.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College?
One advantage of the Electoral College is that it almost always produces clear results. The winner of the national popular vote almost always wins a decisive majority of electoral votes. This is made possible by the fact that all states except for Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis, which means that if you win the most votes in a state, you win all of that state’s electoral votes. One of the biggest disadvantages is that the individuals in the less populated states are substantially overrepresented in comparison to those in the larger states. Wyoming has 586,107 citizens and three electoral votes, resulting in one electoral vote for every 196,369 citizens. California, on the other hand, has 39,144,818 citizens and 55 electoral votes, resulting in one electoral vote for every 711,724 citizens.

How can a candidate win the popular vote but not the election?
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigned in states they were likely to win. They do so in order to solidify their base of voters most likely to support them. But, because of the way the Electoral College works, if you boost your vote total significantly over a majority, those are “wasted votes” that could be better used in a state where the popular vote is closer. The same goes for campaigning in states where you have little chance of winning the popular vote. For example, Clinton spent a good bit of time campaigning in Arizona and Texas, two states she had little chance of winning. Trump, on the other hand, spent a lot of time campaigning late in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. He won all three by very small margins. His campaign understood very well how to win the Electoral College.

When the national popular vote is extremely close, as in 2000 and 2016, it is fairly easy to get a split decision. The reason is found in the winner-takes-all awarding of electoral votes. Imagine a situation in which two candidates are tied in the national popular vote. Candidate A is ahead in states that would give him 271 electoral votes and Candidate B is ahead in states that would give him 267 electoral votes. If Candidate B wants to catch up and decides to campaign day after day in a state where he’s already ahead, he may gain in the national popular vote, but he’s already won that state’s electoral votes, so there is no advantage to be gained in terms of the electoral vote.

Do the electors have the ability to change the current results of the 2016 Presidential Election?
The decision of who is elected president rests entirely with the electors, however the notion that electors will change their votes en masse just isn’t tenable. Remember, those who serve as electors are chosen because they are the most passionate supporters of the candidate. They are not objective, nor are they nonpartisan. In addition, 29 states have laws that prohibit electors from changing their electoral votes to a candidate different from the one they pledged to support. A few days before the 2016 election, two electors from Washington State said that if Hillary Clinton won their state’s popular vote, they would cast their electoral votes for Donald Trump. If electors do end up changing their electoral votes, they will each pay a $1,000 fine. All things considered, however, the occurrence of so-called “faithless electors” is exceedingly rare.

When do the electors cast their ballots?
Electors are required to meet in their respective states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which will be Dec. 19 this year. The United States Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives on Jan. 6, 2017 to conduct the official tally of electoral votes from the several states.

Why do you believe the results of this presidential election have fostered such backlash?
It is reasonable to expect some public demonstration any time the winner of the popular vote fails to win a majority of the electoral votes. The 2000 presidential election also saw its fair share of protest concerning the way the recount in Florida was handled by the local, state and federal government.

Have you noticed that this election has increased the public’s interest in the Electoral College and the United States’ political processes as a whole?
This is an excellent opportunity for all of us to brush up on our knowledge of the Electoral College and develop a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. It is easy to criticize the Electoral College. It has its share of flaws but finding another system that works better is more difficult. The 2016 presidential election also serves as a powerful reminder of the value of civic engagement. Trump supporters should know that three states in the so-called “rust belt” that gave their candidate the victory, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, were won by a total of just over 100,000 votes. On the other hand, it will come as little solace to Clinton supporters to know that just nine more votes in each precinct in Wisconsin would have given their candidate that state’s electoral votes. Ultimately, elections are decided by those who show up.

Leave a Reply