1. The Electoral College Learning Objective 5:
Describe how the electoral college works and reflects the concepts of proportional representation and tyranny of the majority.

2. Rationale For System
Poor Communication---common people would lack essential info
Desire to have best people to select President. Fear that common people would be swayed by demagogues
A compromise by those who wanted direct election and those who wanted Congress to elect President

3. Allotment of electoral votes
Each state has as many votes as it has members of Congress
Minimum #: 3
Wash D.C. has 3 votes (Amendment 23)
Total of 538 votes
California has highest #: 55
Implications of Movement from “Rust Belt” to “Sun Belt”. Increasing representation in latter.

4. Selection of Electors
Each party develops a “slate” of electors prior to election
Typically loyal party members

5. Winning of Electoral Votes
Candidates with most popular votes (only a plurality is needed) wins all of that state’s electoral votes (winner-take-all)---concentration of campaigning in large, competitive states. Emphasis on swing states, e.g., FL, OH, PA, MI
Electors meet in respective state capitals in December to cast ballots

6. Winning the election Learning Objective 5:
 Describe how the electoral college works and reflects the concepts of proportional representation and tyranny of the majority.
Majority of electoral votes needed to win (270)
If no candidate has the majority (this is what the Founders thought would happen most of the time. They did not anticipate the development of the two-party system):
A. House selects President from among top 3
B. Each state has 1 vote
C. Done in 1800 and 1824
D. Senate selects V.P. from among top two candidates

7. Criticisms
President can be elected w/ only a plurality, rather than a majority, of popular votes, esp. w/ presence of strong 3rd party candidates.
Possibility of minority President (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000). This is due to winner-take-all feature that distorts margins of victory within states
“Faithless electors”: no fed. Law requires electors to vote the way they are “supposed” to vote

8. Criticisms (Cont’d)
Small states proportionately overrepresented: Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for 500,000 people (1 vote/166,000 people); California has 55 votes for 33 million people (1 vote/600,000 people)---small states will not pass Constitutional amemdment
Small states ridiculously overrepresented if election goes to the House, e.g., Wyoming would have same voting power as California
Inhibits development of 3rd parties, e.g., Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, but won 0 electoral votes since he did not win any states

9. Alternatives
Direct Election: Each person’s vote would count as much as every other person’s vote (“one man, one vote.”)
District System (candidate who wins a congressional district wins that district’s electoral vote) Overall winner in a state would get the two bonus electoral votes by virtue of its senate seats
Proportional system (candidate gets same % of electoral votes as popular votes)
Keep electoral votes but abolish the electors themselves

10. Why has electoral college not been abolished?
Tradition/reluctance to tamper with Constitution
Difficulties in amending Constitution
Opposition from the overrepresented small states
Opposition from urban racial minorities: concentration of racial minorities in swing states give them clout to “tip the scales” towards their favored candidates under the present system

11. Congressional Redistricting Cases
Baker v. Carr (TN; 1962)- “One man, one vote”
State legislative districts
Wesberry v. Sanders (GA;1964)
Congressional Dist. Pop. Were greatly unequal
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Racially Gerrymandered Dist. (NC)