Electoral College

2024 Presidential Election Date: November 5, 2024

Presidential candidates

Kamala Harris (D) Donald Trump (R) Jill Stein (G) Chase Oliver (L)

Battleground states • List of registered candidates • Electoral College • Prediction markets • Presidential debates • Important dates • Presidential election by state • Campaign finance • Logos and slogans • Key staffers • Vice presidential candidates • Policy positions • Ballotpedia's presidential election coverage index

Primaries

Democratic • Republican • Green • Libertarian

Ballotpedia's presidential election coverage 2028 • 2024 • 2020 • 2016

The Electoral College is the process by which the states and District of Columbia elect the president of the United States. Each state and D.C. is represented by a number of electors equal to the size of its congressional delegation. There are 538 electors in total. To win the Electoral College, a candidate must receive a majority—at least 270—electoral votes.^[1]

Thirteen states gained or lost electoral votes following the 2020 Census:^[2]

• Texas gained two votes.
• Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each gained one.
• California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia each lost one.

Although there is no constitutional provision or federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the election results in their state, electors typically vote for their state's popular vote winner. Some states have provisions permitting the disqualification and replacement of an elector whose vote deviates from the state's popular vote.^[3][4]

This page provides the following information about the Electoral College:

• Electoral votes per state
• History
• Function
• Faithless electors
• Arguments in favor of the Electoral College
• Arguments against the Electoral College
• Noteworthy events

Electoral votes per state in the 2024 presidential election[edit]

See also: Presidential candidates, 2024

The following map shows the number of electoral votes per state in the 2024 presidential election.

History[edit]

Overview[edit]

The Framers of the Constitution struggled to determine an effective way of electing a president and debated a number of solutions, each with its own issues in a developing nation. Selection by voters, Congress, and state legislatures were considered. The following issues were raised for each option:^[5]

• Direct election: Communication and transportation made campaigning nearly impossible, meaning candidates in highly populated areas would be favored due to local recognition.
• Congressional election: Congressional election could lead to political bargaining and susceptibility to international influences.
• State legislature election: State legislatures could lead to the erosion of federal powers because the president would show favor to the electors.

The Framers came up with a compromise by creating the Electoral College. Electors, equaling the number from each state's congressional delegation, would be chosen to cast the votes for president.^[5] Initially, each elector was given two votes. The candidate with the second-highest vote total was elected vice president.^[6] Each state's legislature was permitted to form the rules on how the electors were chosen.^[5] The original rules of the Electoral College included the following:^[6]

• Electors were to meet separately in their states in order to mitigate brokering political deals.
• Electors did not gather together to cast their votes.
• At least one of the candidates had to be chosen from a state other than the elector's.
• A vote equaling at least the majority of the number of the electors was required to elect a president.
• The United States Congress set the dates to meet electors.

In the Constitution[edit]

The Framers included the formation of the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form. Sections that are linked have since been amended or superseded:

XII Amendment[edit]

The original rules did not establish separate votes for president and vice president. Instead, the winner was named president and the runner-up vice president. In 1800, this system resulted in a tie between both members of the Democratic-Republican ticket, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The tie went to the United States House of Representatives to be resolved, which led to the passage of the 12th Amendment.

The 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804 and created the following rules:^[6]

• Each state's electors were to meet in one location, but separate from other states' delegations.
• The safe harbor provision was added. The provision provided that if a state's results were disputed and the state's legislature passed a procedure to resolve the issue, a finalized agreement can be made within six days prior to the election.
• Votes for president and vice president were cast as separate ballots, and holding true to the Constitution, one of the votes had to be for someone outside of the elector's state.

The following text is a transcription of the 12th Amendment in its original form. Sections that are linked have since been amended or superseded:

XXIII Amendment[edit]

The 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961. The amendment allocated electoral votes to the District of Columbia equal to the number of delegates it would have if it were a state, but not to exceed the number of votes given to the least populated state.

The 23rd Amendment reads as follows:

Electoral Count Act of 1887[edit]

Congress passed and Grover Cleveland (D) signed the Electoral Count Act in 1887 following disputed election results in the 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes (R) and Samuel Tilden (D). Electors in Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon submitted competing electoral vote counts to Congress. In 1877, Grant signed a bill convening an electoral commission consisting of five members of the U.S. House of Representatives, five members of the U.S. Senate, and five justices of the United States Supreme Court to resolve the dispute. A decade later, the Electoral Count Act was passed to address some questions that emerged from the commission's decision.^[8]

The Act places authority for "final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any" of a state's electors with the state itself. Additionally, it outlines the process by which Congress counts the states' electoral votes and by which members of Congress can present objections to each state's submission.^[9]

Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022[edit]

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 was a bill signed into law by President Joe Biden (D) on December 23, 2022.^[10] The Senate approved the bill, which was attached to a year-end omnibus funding bill, in a 68-29 vote on December 22, 2022.^[11] The House approved the bill in a 225-201 vote the following day.^[12]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the bill on July 20, 2022. Collins and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) led negotiations on the bill.^[13] When Collins introduced the bill, the following senators signed on as co-sponsors: Manchin, Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

This bill changed the procedure for counting electoral votes outlined in the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Click here to read more about the Electoral Count Act.

Elements of the bill included:^[14][10]

• Specifying that the vice president's role at the joint session of congress to count electoral votes is ministerial and that he or she cannot solely adjudicate disputes over electors.
• Raising the objection threshold at the joint session of congress to count electoral votes to one-fifth of the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the 1887 Electoral Count Act, the threshold was one member from each chamber of Congress.
• Identifying governors as the single official responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that state’s electors, unless that official is otherwise identified in the state's law or constitution.
• Providing for expedited judicial review of certain claims about states' certificates identifying their electors.

Since the 1887 passage of the Electoral Count Act, there have been three joint sessions of congress to count electoral votes where members were able to advance an objection by meeting the Electoral Count Act's threshold of one U.S. House member and one U.S. Senate member submitting written objections. These objections were raised in 1969, 2005, and 2021. After an objection to Arizona's electoral votes was raised in 2021, the last time congress met in a joint session to count electoral votes before the introduction of this bill, the proceedings were interrupted due to a breach of the U.S. Capitol. Click here to read more.

Function[edit]

Selection of elector candidates[edit]

Eligibility[edit]

Each state is charged with establishing how electors are chosen. The only people barred from serving as electors by the Constitution are those who hold an "Office of Trust or Profit under the United States," including members of the legislature and judiciary, federal law enforcement officers and military personnel and other public employees of the federal government.^[6]

The 2012 meeting of Ohio's electors.

Elector nominations[edit]

Thirty-two states use state party conventions to nominate major party candidates to the position of elector. Five states use the state party's central committee to nominate candidates. Other methods include nomination by governor, nominations based on unspecified party, the use of primary elections and by the state's preferred presidential candidate. Minor party candidates have different state specified nominations.^[6]

Election of electors[edit]

Originally, the electors were chosen by the legislators in each state. However, voters now choose all electors nationwide. When voters go to the polls on election day, they cast votes for the electors who are nominated for each presidential candidate's party. In 48 of the 50 states, a "winner-take-all" system is used to determine where all of the state's electoral votes will go. Whichever party's electors receive the most votes get to allocate all of the state's votes to their chosen candidate for both president and vice president. The exceptions to the "winner-take-all" system are Maine and Nebraska. These states split the votes based on districts.^[6]

Faithless electors[edit]

Overview[edit]

Faithless electors are members of the Electoral College who do not cast a vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. While thirty-three states and the District of Columbia require electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, only 14 of those states have an enforcement mechanism to replace a faithless elector and his or her deviant vote, according to FairVote.^[15]

The following table shows state laws binding electors, where applicable:^[15]

Faithless electors in the 2016 election[edit]

See also: Presidential election, 2016

There were seven faithless electors in the 2016 election.^[16] Donald Trump (R) was projected to win 306 votes, but two Republican electors in Texas voted for other individuals: Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and 2012 presidential candidate and former Rep. Ron Paul (R). Trump won Texas by approximately 10 points.

Chris Suprun, the elector who voted for Kasich, discussed his vote in an op-ed for The Hill: "Never in American history has a president-elect presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Surely, electors have a constitutional duty if, after the popular vote but before the electoral vote, there emerges credible evidence that they are electing someone who is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President." He encouraged his fellow electors to defect from Trump, saying, "Stand up and be counted. History will remember what you do in this moment."^[17]

Four Democratic electors in Washington state did not vote for Hillary Clinton (D), who won the state by almost 16 points. Three electors voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R), who did not run for president in 2016. A fourth voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American tribal leader from South Dakota. The electors who voted for Powell said their votes were not against Clinton. One elector said that she voted for Powell "in the hopes that Democrats and Republicans could reconcile." The elector who voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, Robert Satiacum, said his vote was about environmental concerns. "It's all about the water. We need leaders who understand that," said Satiacum.^[18] Faith Spotted Eagle was involved in protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota throughout 2015 and 2016.^[19] Satiacum had earlier said in November 2016 that he would not vote for Clinton.^[20]

One Democratic elector in Hawaii voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), who ran against Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination. Clinton won Hawaii by 32 points in the general election.^[21] Sanders won the state's caucuses during the Democratic primaries by close to 40 points.

Arguments in favor of the Electoral College[edit]

Geographically distributed national support[edit]

Since no single region contains a majority of electoral votes, candidates cannot win by focusing only on regional issues while leaving other areas of the country out. It also encourages a candidate to select a running mate from a different region in order to build coalitions of states while campaigning. Those who support this theory suggest that even more important that winning a majority vote, is the ability to gain wide distribution of support across the country. In the event that the popular vote is very close, the thought is that the candidate with a wider distribution of support would beat a candidate with more popular support.^[5]

Enhanced minority influence[edit]

In states with concentrations of ethnic and racial minorities or special interest groups, often being states with high numbers of electoral votes, winning over those groups can swing an election due to the "winner-takes-all" system in the Electoral College. The votes of minority groups can carry more influence than their amount of votes would suggest.^[5]

Two party system stability[edit]

For a minor party to win the presidency, they would need to have enough electoral votes to prevent a majority to any candidate and have enough U.S. House support to be elected over the two major party candidates. Because of this, the Electoral College process essentially forces minor party voters to merge into one of the two major parties. Likewise, the two major parties, seeking the votes to win the election can mold their platforms to gain the votes of minor party movements. The goal is to have two parties representing the centers of their respective platforms. Supporters of this theory suggest that extremists would have more incentive to campaign if the elections were based solely on popular vote, because if runoff elections were required to win the presidency, parties would tend toward more radical platforms to gain more support.^[5]

Maintains federal system of representation[edit]

As a requirement by the federal system of the United States, certain responsibilities must be left up to the states when it comes to representation in the federal government. The structure of the Electoral College provides the states the ability to determine the outcome of presidential elections, due to its similar setup to the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, balancing the power of smaller states with that of the most populous.^[5]

Arguments against the Electoral College[edit]

Chance of majority candidate losing[edit]

There are three possible ways a presidential candidate could lose the popular vote but still be elected as president.^[5]

• If three candidates split the electoral votes in a way that none reach the majority required, either one candidate would have to withdraw from the race and give the support of his electors to another candidate, or the U.S. House of Representatives would be charged with electing the president, per the 12th Amendment.
• If one candidate's support was heavily concentrated in more populous states, but another candidate's support is spread out geographically and by only a slim majority, a candidate receiving only a minority of the popular vote could win the electoral vote.
• If a minor party received enough votes that no candidate gets more than 50% of the popular vote, candidates can still be elected by a majority electoral vote. This is not uncommon in U.S. history and has happened 15 times.

Historical instances[edit]

• In 1824, four candidates split the electoral college vote in a way that none received the majority. John Quincy Adams was elected president by the House even though Andrew Jackson received more electoral votes.^[5]
• In 1836, the Whig Party ran three candidates in different areas of the country. Their thought was that the local candidates would win their party the majority of electoral votes at which time, they would choose amongst themselves who would be president. The Democratic-Republican candidate, Martin Van Buren, won the majority electoral vote and the presidency.^[5]
• In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority by one vote to Rutherford B. Hayes (R).^[5]
• In 1888, Grover Cleveland (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to Benjamin Harrison (R).^[5]
• In 2000, Al Gore (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to George W. Bush (R).^[22]
• In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to Donald Trump (R).

Depressed voter turnout[edit]

Since a candidate with a majority of the popular vote can still lose a presidential election, some argue it creates a disincentive to participate in the presidential election. No matter how high the voter turnout is, the state still receives the same amount of electoral votes for a presidential candidate. Others do not believe this is an issue because of the other offices at stake during any particular election day, from state offices to U.S. House and Senate seats.^[5]

Inaccurate reflection of the population[edit]

Because each state has a minimum of three electoral votes, votes from those in the least populated states count more toward the electoral vote than votes from those in more populous states. For instance, in 1988, the seven least populated states combined to count for as many electoral votes as Florida, yet the total population of those states was less than that of Florida.

Another example of the failure to provide an accurate reflection of the population is when it comes to minor party candidates. If a minor party candidate does not carry a majority in any state, they could carry a significant minority of the popular vote throughout the country, but they may not get a single electoral vote in the election.^[5]

Noteworthy events[edit]

Supreme Court rules states can enforce laws penalizing faithless electors (2020)[edit]

See also: Chiafalo v. Washington

See also: Colorado Department of State v. Baca

On July 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued rulings in two connected cases that upheld the constitutionality of penalties for faithless electors. Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca were consolidated when originally granted review by the court. On March 10, 2020, the cases were no longer consolidated but remained linked.

In Chiafalo v. Washington, the state of Washington fined electors after they voted contrary to Washington state law requiring that they cast their electoral college ballots for the winner of the popular vote. The electors claimed the fines were unconstitutional and appealed them to an administrative law judge, who upheld the imposition of the fine. The electors appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court. The court affirmed the secretary of state's decision. On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, the appellants moved for direct review. The state supreme court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, holding that the imposed fines were constitutional under Article II, section 1, that the electors were not granted absolute discretion in casting their votes under Article II or the Twelfth Amendment nor did the fine interfere with a federal function, and that an elector acts under the authority of the State, meaning that no First Amendment right is violated when a state imposes a fine based on an elector's violation of their pledge.

In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, electors made a similar argument to that of the plaintiffs in Chiafalo v. Washington. The case dated back to the 2016 presidential election when three of Colorado's presidential electors tried to cast their votes for candidates other than Hillary Clinton, who won the state. Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams told the electors they must vote for Clinton or be removed. Two of the electors then opted to vote for Clinton, but one–Micheal Baca–would not and instead tried to vote for John Kasich. Baca was then removed and replaced with another elector. The three electors filed suit, claiming Baca's removal amounted to a deprivation of their rights. The case was eventually appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the nullification of Baca’s vote and his removal from office were unconstitutional.

Both cases were argued before the Supreme Court on May 13, 2020. The court issued rulings for both cases on July 6, 2020, that upheld the constitutionality of penalties for faithless electors. In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Washington Supreme Court’s decision, holding that a state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee and the state voters’ choice for president. In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision in an 8-0 per curiam decision for the reasons outlined in Chiafalo v. Washington.

Recent news[edit]

This section links to a Google news search for the term U.S. + Electoral + College

See also[edit]

• Electoral College in the 2024 presidential election
• Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election
• Splits between the Electoral College and popular vote
• United States Constitution
• United States House of Representatives

External links[edit]

Suggest a link

• Electoral College home page
• Interactive Electoral College map by 270 to Win

Footnotes[edit]

v • e U.S. Executive Branch Elected offices President Joe Biden • Vice President Kamala Harris Executive departments Department of Defense • Department of State • Department of Homeland Security • Department of Justice • Department of Commerce • Department of Education • Department of the Treasury • Department of Agriculture • Department of Energy • Department of Labor • Department of Transportation • Department of the Interior • Department of Health and Human Services • Department of Veterans Affairs • Department of Housing and Urban Development Cabinet-level offices Environmental Protection Agency • Office of Management and Budget • U.S. Mission to the United Nations • Council of Economic Advisors • Small Business Administration • White House Chief of Staff Federally appointed offices Federal Reserve System • National Security Advisor • White House Press Secretary • U.S. Postmaster General • Central Intelligence Agency • Federal Bureau of Investigation • Internal Revenue Service • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives • National Security Agency • Congressional Budget Office • Federal Election Commission • Transportation Security Administration • Drug Enforcement Administration • Federal Communications Commission Glossary Appointment confirmation process • United States Constitution • Electoral College • Deferred action • Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) • Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) • Impeachment of federal officials • Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) • North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) • P5+1 and E3+3 • Trade adjustment assistance (TAA) • Trade promotion authority (TPA)