5.01 Electoral College (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Enterprise State Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by ColonelLeopard3852
Name:
Date:
School:
Facilitator:
5.01 Electoral College
Part 1: Background
Answer the questions below in complete sentences.
1.
Who were the candidates in the 2000 Presidential Election?
George W. Bush ,Al Gore
2.
Why was this election controversial?
was that in Florida counties where they had anticipated stronger results, Democrats challenged the
vote and wanted a recount. In the end, George W. Bush was nonetheless elected as president of the United States.
3.
In how many elections did the candidate win the popular vote but NOT become president? 5
4.
What is the Electoral College and why is it important?
Although the phrase "Electoral College" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, it
is how we refer to the procedure by which the United States elects the President. The President and Vice President are chosen by the
States, which also include the District of Columbia only for this procedure.
Part 2: Documents
Read the document excerpts below. Write a short 1-2 sentence summary of the excerpt and how it relates to the Electoral College.
Excerpt
Summary and How It
Relates to Electoral College
Federalist Papers No. 68 (March 14, 1788)
Alexander Hamilton, writing to convince Americans to ratify the Constitution,
describes the process and advantages of the Electoral College.
The Mode of Electing the President
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is
almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped
without severe censure ... I venture somewhat further ... that if the manner of
it be not perfect, it is at least excellent ...
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of
the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be
answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished
body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the
particular conjuncture.
...
[T]he people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors,
equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the
national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some
fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the
seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a
majority of the whole number of votes will be the President ...
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President
will never fall to ... any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with
the requisite qualifications.
the people of each State shall
select a number of electors,
equal to the number of
senators and representatives
from that State in the federal
government, who shall
convene inside the State and
vote for a suitable candidate
for president. Their votes will
be forwarded to the national
government's headquarters,
and the President will be
whoever happens to have a
majority of the total number of
votes.The electoral process
provides a moral certainty that
no individual who is not
exceptionally gifted with the
necessary qualifications would
ever hold the post of
President.
Small States (November 20, 2000)
During the 2000 presidential election recount, a Duke University professor
describes problems with the Electoral College.
... [A] deeper reality emerges in the battle of George W. Bush and Al Gore:
the bias in the Electoral College toward small states.
It seems clear now that Al Gore won the popular vote. Yet this time the
Electoral College apparently did not fall into line. The small-state bias ...
helps explain why.
States with large populations do get more electoral votes, of course, than
those that have relatively few people. Each state gets electoral votes equal
to the number of its representatives to the House, which are allocated in
proportion to population. But then something else is added: an electoral vote
Al Gore won the popular vote,
it appears. However, it
appears that the Electoral
College did not follow suit this
time. The small-state bias
explains why in part.
Of course, states with larger
populations receive more
electoral votes than states
with smaller populations.
Equal to the number of its
House representatives, which
are distributed in proportion to
for each senator. And that seemingly small addition has a surprisingly
powerful effect.
South Dakota's electoral vote, for example, is tripled by the senatorial "add-
on" of two electoral votes, while New York's electoral weight is increased by
only 6 percent. And so in New York, one electoral vote represents 550,000
people, while in South Dakota it represents 232,000.
Mr. Bush generally did well in states with small populations, winning 19 of
the 26 states that have fewer than 10 electoral votes each. By winning so
many small states, he gained a clear Electoral College advantage.
Mr. Gore won, for example, 22 electoral votes representing 10.4 million
people in Massachusetts and Minnesota. Mr. Bush got more—24—by
winning votes representing only 6.1 million people—spread across six small
states.
Or, to look at the numbers another way, first count as a wash the seven small
states won by Mr. Gore and seven closely comparable small states won by
Mr. Bush. That leaves Mr. Bush winning an additional 12 small states with a
total population roughly equal to that of California. From those states, he will
receive 73 electoral votes, compared with California's 54. That difference is
enough to tilt the outcome of the election.
Those who tout the virtues of the Electoral College should confront the
mathematical reality of the inequities they are defending.
population, each state
receives electoral votes. An
electoral vote for each senator
is however added afterwards.
And that ostensibly
insignificant addition has an
unexpectedly potent impact.
The senate "add-on" of two
electoral votes, for instance,
triples South Dakota's
electoral vote, but New York's
electoral weight is only raised
by 6%. Thus, one electoral
vote was cast in New
York.There is just a 6% gain in
electoral weight. Thus, while
one electoral vote in South
Dakota represents 232,000
people, one in New York
represents 550,000 people.
In areas with modest
populations, Mr. Bush
performed admirably,
capturing 19 of the 26 states
with fewer than 10 electoral
votes each. He clearly
benefited from an advantage
in the Electoral College by
winning so many minor states.
For instance, Mr. Gore
received 22 electoral votes,
which equate to 10.4 million
voters in Massachusetts and
Minnesota. By obtaining
ballots from just 6.1 million
voters dispersed over six tiny
states, Mr. Bush received
more votes—24.
Or, to put the figures another
way, start by treating the
seven tiny states that Mr. Gore
won and the seven nearly
identical small states that Mr.
Bush won as a wash.
The Electoral College: Don't Drop Out (December 4, 2000)
During the 2000 presidential election recount, a conservative magazine
editorial defends the Electoral College.
Every time the Electoral College comes up for discussion, so do proposals to
abolish it in favor of a direct popular vote. The main reason this will probably
never happen is that getting rid of the Electoral College would require a
constitutional amendment, and too many small states are committed to
keeping it. This year, in pursuit of a narrow victory, Bush and Gore spent
serious time in a slew of small states, from Washington to West Virginia.
Such places would never see a presidential candidate, if all the votes were
thrown into a common pot. The United States has always been a big country,
even in 1789 when its population was small, and regional differences have
always had ideological and temperamental effects. Liberals in Oregon and
Michigan are not the same; neither are conservatives in Mississippi and New
Hampshire. It is good that candidates should have to tool their messages to
address a variety of concerns.
An even more important reason for keeping the Electoral College is to avoid
massive vote fraud. Under the current system, thieves must concentrate their
efforts to steal close elections in selected states: Illinois in 1960, Florida in
Every time the Electoral
College is discussed,
suggestions to replace it with
a direct popular vote also
surface. The Electoral College
would need to be abolished by
a constitutional change, and
too many minor states are
committed to maintaining it.
This is the fundamental
reason why this is likely
unlikely to happen. This year,
Bush and Gore invested
significant time in a number of
tiny states, from West Virginia
to Washington, in an effort to
secure a close victory. If all the
votes were combined into one
big pot, such places would
never see a presidential
2000. This makes successful vote fraud in presidential elections a rare event
... In a national popular vote, any fraudulent vote anywhere could tip the
scales.
The Electoral College is attacked as a frustration of the people's will. But the
people's will is multiform. They express it when they respond to polls; when
they buy and sell; when they speak; when they vote for senators,
congressmen, and school supervisors. Each expression is slightly different.
The Electoral College is a frame for catching the views of a nation stretching
over several time, and thought, zones. It gave us James Buchanan, and may
well give us Al Gore. But it also gave us Lincoln and Reagan. It should be
preserved.
contender. Even in 1789 when
its population was modest, the
United States has always
been a large nation, and
regional distinctions have
always had an ideological and
temperamental impact.The
Electoral College is criticized
as a violation of the will of the
people. However, the will of
the people is diverse. They
demonstrate it through
responding to surveys, buying
and selling, speaking, and
voting for senators,
congressmen, and school
administrators. Each
expression varies a little bit.
The Electoral College serves
as a lens through which to
observe the perspectives of a
country that spans many time
and thought zones. It
produced James Buchanan
and may have produced Al
Gore. We also got Lincoln and
Reagan from it, though. It
ought to be kept.
Abolish the Electoral College (August 29, 2004)
In an editorial, the New York Times calls for the demise of the Electoral
College.
It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts
presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true
constitutional crisis ...
The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every
election the possibility ... that the president will be a candidate who lost the
popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to
look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral
College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three
automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means
states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes
wind up with three, four or five.
The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons
enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well.
This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts
presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance,
leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a
small slice of the electorate ... The political concerns of Cuban-Americans,
who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest
to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come
up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry
territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large
part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.
Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules
governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things
go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are
pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing
candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to
switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every
senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of
Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several
plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case
of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state
delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for
California's 35.5 million.
The biggest issue with the
Electoral College is that it
makes it possible for a
candidate to win the
presidency while losing the
popular vote in every election.
People in other countries who
have been trained to view the
United States as the oldest
democracy in the world are
shocked by this. Small states
are also strongly favored by
the Electoral College. States
that, based on their
population, might only be
entitled to one or two electoral
votes nevertheless end up
with three, four, or five. This is
because every state receives
three automatic electors: one
for each senator and a
member of the House.These
are the issues that we have
already encountered. If
something goes wrong, the
Electoral College's mysterious
rules might devastate the
country. If the Electoral
College vote is close, a losing
candidate may very well be
able to persuade a small
number of electors to swap
sides. However, electors are
not compelled to vote for the
candidates they have pledged
to. The Electoral College vote
can finish in a tie since there
are an even number of
electors – one for each
senator and representative in
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
the House from each state,
plus three for the District of
Columbia. There are a number
of scenarios where a 269-269
tie could happen this year. If
there is a tie, the House
decides who wins.
Part 3: The Electoral College: Wrap-Up and Discussion Questions
In the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election, reform efforts centered on revising voting procedures and modernizing voting equipment.
Surprisingly, not much headway was made in reforming the Electoral College. Some explanation for this may be found in the outcome of two
reform attempts in the late 20th century. In 1969 a proposed revision of the Electoral College was defeated in Congress by small state
legislators, most of them Republicans. They feared a loss of influence for their states if the presidential election was based exclusively on the
popular vote. In 1976 a similar proposal was defeated by legislators from states with large urban populations, most of them Democrats. They
feared the loss of the influence of their traditionally Democratic voting constituencies. Ultimately, it would seem, Electoral College reform has no
true champion in Congress.
Nonetheless, the Electoral College affects American elections far more than the framers of the Constitution ever imagined. For example, it has
enabled the two dominant political parties to pursue regional approaches to winning the presidency. For example, the Democratic Party relied on
the "Solid South" from the 1880s through 1968, when Republican candidate Richard Nixon was able to use the strategy to his own advantage.
The democrats, and then Nixon, were able to appeal to pro-segregation and anti-civil rights voters in the South, virtually guaranteeing the
Electoral College votes of an entire region.
In the modern era, each party can generally count on the electoral votes of certain regions, for example, the Democrats rely on the Northeast
and California and the Republicans the South and West. Recent Electoral College strategies have resulted in presidential campaigns focusing
on a few key states, often called "battleground" states, while the rest of the nation is taken somewhat for granted. Presidential candidates ignore
some states entirely, choosing to spend their time and campaign money in states where the electoral vote is in doubt. During the 2004 election,
some Democratic political strategists argued that their candidate could win the election without carrying a single southern state, instead relying
on the Midwest, Northeast, and California for an Electoral College victory. The strategy failed when they were unable to win several key
Midwestern states.
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences.
1.
Is it fair to the electorate at large if presidential candidates concentrate their efforts in a few key states?
No,States have
disproportionate voting power in the Electoral College, favoring smaller states with more electoral votes per resident.
2.
What specific challenges would be posed by a disputed election based solely on the popular vote?
Electors are not required to cast their
ballots in accordance with the popular vote; any election may need to be determined in the House of Representatives; and the winner of the
popular vote is not a guarantee of the president.
3.
How does the Electoral College support the two-party system, and does it unfairly hinder the success of third-party candidates?
through electoral law and single-member districts. Based on a candidate earning a majority of the votes cast for an office, the system is
winner-take-all.
Part 4:
Focus Question
Answer the question below in a short paragraph.
Defend your position using evidence from this lesson.
Is the Electoral College a fair method of selecting the president?
Yes, because it increases the voting rights of the smaller states. Additionally, the president must visit each
state. Additionally, the election may not be won by the popular vote winner.