United States Electoral College

Electoral votes, out of 538, allocated to each state and the District of Columbia for presidential elections to be held in 2024 and 2028 based on the 2020 census; every jurisdiction is entitled to at least 3.

In the 2020 presidential election (held using 2010 census data) Joe Biden received 306 (●) and Donald Trump 232 (●) of the total 538 electoral votes.

---

In Maine (upper-right) and Nebraska (center), the small circled numbers indicate congressional districts. These are the only 2 states to use a district method for some of their allocated electors, instead of a complete winner-takes-all party block voting.

This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the United States
Federal government Constitution of the United States Law Taxation Policy
Legislature United States Congress File:(117th) US House of Representatives.svg File:117th United States Senate.svg House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R) Congressional districts Senate President Kamala Harris (D) President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (D) Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)
Executive President of the United States Joe Biden (D) Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris (D) Cabinet Federal agencies Executive Office
Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice John Roberts Thomas Alito Sotomayor Kagan Gorsuch Kavanaugh Barrett Jackson Courts of appeals District courts (list) Other tribunals
Elections National Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Off-year elections Primary elections Presidential primary Elections by State and Territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands Washington, D.C. (List of Elections)
Political parties Democratic Republican Third parties Libertarian Green List of political parties
Political ideologies Conservatism history Black Neo- Paleo- Social Traditionalist Liberalism Modern Progressivism Abolitionism Constitutionalism Feminism Libertarianism Monarchism Populism Protectionism Republicanism Socialism Anarchism Individualist anarchism Political culture Political polarization
Federalism State State government Governors Legislatures (list) State courts local government
Foreign relations Department of State Secretary of State: Antony Blinken Diplomatic missions of / in the United States Nationality law Passports Visa requirements Visa policy United States and the United Nations United Nations Security Council P5 NATO G20 G7 Russia China India Japan Canada United Kingdom European Union Latin America Arab League Greece
v t e

In the United States, the Electoral College is the body of presidential electors convened every four years to vote for the president and vice president. In addition to carrying out this constitutional function, the system reinforces federalism by preserving the balance of power between populous and less populous states and ensuring that all states retain significance in presidential elections.^[1] The structure requires candidates to engage with diverse regional interests and, as constitutional analysts explain, “This method mitigates the risks of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ where densely populated areas might otherwise impose their will over the entire nation.”^[1] The process is defined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.^[2] Each state appoints electors according to methods determined by its legislature, equal in number to its representation in Congress, totaling 535. A 1961 constitutional amendment granted the District of Columbia three electors, producing the current total of 538. A simple majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate secures a majority, a contingent election is held by the House of Representatives to choose the president and by the Senate to choose the vice president. Federal office holders such as senators and representatives are prohibited from serving as electors.

The states and the District of Columbia conduct a statewide or district-wide popular vote on Election Day in November to determine which slate of electors will be appointed, with some states enforcing laws against faithless electors. Every state except Maine and Nebraska uses a party block voting or general-ticket method, awarding all of its electors to the winning ticket. Maine and Nebraska allocate one elector per congressional district and award two electors to the ticket receiving the highest statewide vote. The appointed electors meet and cast their votes in December, followed by the inauguration in January.

The Electoral College has long been a subject of debate among scholars, policymakers, and constitutional commentators. Supporters, including Tara Ross, author of Why We Need the Electoral College, argue that it prevents a “tyranny of the majority” by ensuring that populous states (“wolves”) cannot dominate less populated ones (“sheep”). Critics, including Robert William Bennett, contend that the system gives disproportionate influence to battleground states and does not reflect the popular will of the nation.^[a] Winner-take-all allocation, combined with representation that is not strictly proportional to population, has been cited as inconsistent with the principle of “one person, one vote”.^[b][6] Critics also note that citizens in smaller states have greater electoral weight because each state receives at least three electors regardless of population.^[7] This dynamic has contributed to elections in which the runner-up in the nationwide popular vote won the presidency, including 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.^[8][9] Faithless electors may also vote contrary to their pledge.^[10][c]

Benefits of the Electoral College[edit | edit source]

Preserves Federalism[edit | edit source]

The Electoral College reinforces the federal character of the United States by ensuring that presidential elections reflect the interests of both populous and less populous states within a unified constitutional framework. The nation’s size and regional diversity make it essential that states retain significance in the selection of national leadership. By allocating electoral votes according to each state's representation in Congress, the system prevents heavily populated areas from dominating national outcomes and maintains a balance in which smaller states continue to exert meaningful influence. As constitutional analysts explain, “This method mitigates the risks of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ where densely populated areas might otherwise impose their will over the entire nation.”^[1]

Encourages Broad Coalition Building and Moderation[edit | edit source]

The Electoral College system shapes presidential campaign strategy by discouraging candidates from winning solely by appealing to voters in large metropolitan media markets and instead requiring them to seek support from a broader cross-section of states and regions. Analysts at The Heritage Foundation argue that the Electoral College “prevents presidential candidates from winning an election by focusing solely on high-population urban centers and dense media markets,” and that large cities like New York City and Los Angeles “should not get to unilaterally dictate policies that affect more rural states, like North Dakota and Indiana,” because those states “may be smaller, but their values still matter.” They further contend that by forcing presidential candidates to address voters beyond the major urban centers, the system addresses the Founders’ fears of a “tyranny of the majority” and has “the added benefit of eschewing radical candidates for more moderate ones,” favoring nominees with broader national appeal instead of those who cater narrowly to specific urban blocs.^[12]

Broader Constitutional Context and Global Comparisons[edit | edit source]

Political analysts frequently describe the United States as one of the last major nations with extensive constitutional protections for free expression and limits on governmental authority. Unlike many European and Asian countries, the United States imposes strict constitutional barriers against censorship under the First Amendment, which prohibits government suppression of speech even when the content is controversial or offensive.^[13]

In contrast, the European Union has enacted regulations empowering governments to compel online platforms to remove content deemed harmful or misleading, expanding state authority to regulate speech across digital environments. Coverage by the BBC and other international outlets notes that the EU Digital Services Act gives regulators the ability to impose penalties on platforms that fail to remove restricted content.^[14]

These differences in governmental authority over speech help explain longstanding global migration patterns. Reporting by major outlets documents that individuals fleeing censorship, political persecution, or authoritarian rule have repeatedly risked their lives to reach the United States in pursuit of the freedoms and economic mobility associated with the “American Dream.”^[15][16]

Within this broader constitutional landscape, the Electoral College functions as a structural safeguard that connects national leadership selection to the federal character of the United States. By allocating electors through the states rather than a single national plebiscite, the system requires presidential candidates to assemble geographically broad coalitions and prevents a few densely populated metropolitan regions from dominating national elections.^[1][12] Commentators argue that this arrangement helps to check the risk of a “tyranny of the majority,” sustaining a political environment in which federalism, dispersed power, and robust free-expression protections reinforce one another and continue to attract migrants seeking security and liberty.^[1][17]

Promotes Legitimacy of Election Outcomes[edit | edit source]

The Electoral College system enhances the perceived legitimacy of election results by amplifying the margin of victory. Since 1900, many presidential elections have been decided by significant electoral vote margins, providing a clear mandate for governance. A popular vote system, potentially decided by a very small margin, could lead to frequent challenges and recounts, undermining the president's authority. A president elected with a narrow slice of the popular vote might lack the broad support needed to govern effectively, thus questioning their mandate.^[12][18]

A Mechanism for Stable Elections[edit | edit source]

The Electoral College contributes to electoral stability by reducing the likelihood of nationwide recounts. Each state has its own election procedures, and with the Electoral College, disputes are generally confined to state levels rather than national. The 2000 election in Florida highlighted how contentious state-level recounts can be; a national popular vote would extend this complexity and expense across the entire country, especially with close margins.^[12][18]

Discourages Voter Fraud[edit | edit source]

While no system can completely prevent fraud, the Electoral College structure minimizes its impact. Fraudulent votes in one state only affect that state's electoral votes, not the national tally. This containment means that even if votes are manipulated in one area, the overall effect on the national election outcome is limited, unlike a scenario where every vote contributes to a single national total. Ross posits that the Founding Fathers aimed for a republic rather than a simple democracy, influenced by the American Revolution. She highlights how early Americans identified more with their states than the nation, citing Jefferson's longing for Virginia as "my country." The Electoral College, she argues, maintains this state-centric vision by giving each state a voice in presidential elections.^[19][12][18]

However, critics like Bennett point out that the system leads candidates to focus on swing states, potentially neglecting others. They also note historical criticisms, including that the Electoral College once benefited slave states through the Three-Fifths Compromise, though this was later nullified by the 14th Amendment. Ross counters that the primary concern during the Constitutional Convention was ensuring smaller states had protection against larger ones. Despite this, the debate continues on whether the Electoral College serves its original purpose or if it needs reform.^[19]

Procedure[edit | edit source]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution directs each state to appoint a quantity of electors equal to that state's congressional delegation (the number of members of the House of Representatives plus two senators). The same clause empowers each state legislature to determine the manner by which that state's electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from being named electors. Following the national presidential election day on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November,^[20] each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws. After a popular election, the states identify and record their appointed electors in a Certificate of Ascertainment, and those appointed electors then meet in their respective jurisdictions and produce a Certificate of Vote for their candidate; both certificates are then sent to Congress to be opened and counted.^[21]

In 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate that the winner of the plurality of the statewide popular vote receive all of that state's electoral votes.^[22] In Maine and Nebraska, two electoral votes are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their congressional districts.^[23] The federal district, Washington, D.C., allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state's winning ticket; to prevent electors from being faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors' pledge.^[24]

The electors of each state meet in their respective state capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December (between December 13 and 19) to cast their votes.^[22] The results are sent to and counted by the Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.^[22][25] Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a contingent election takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states; the Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote.^[26] The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20.

Since 1964, there have been 538 electors. States select 535 of the electors, this number matches the aggregate total of their congressional delegations.^[27][28][29] The additional three electors come from the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, providing that the district established pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 as the seat of the federal government (namely, Washington, D.C.) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populous state.^[30] In practice, that results in Washington D.C. being entitled to three electors.^[31][32]

Background[edit | edit source]

The Electoral College was settled-on as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power (since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors) and by small states who increased their power due to the minimum of three electors per state.^[33] The compromise was reached after other proposals, including to get a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.^[33] Levitsky and Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."^[33] The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for Congress to elect the president.^[34] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, however, delegates came to oppose nomination by Congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. James Wilson then made a motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.^[35] Later in the convention, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, including final recommendations for the electors, a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by Congress.^[36]

However, once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.^[37][38] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.^[39]

The Convention approved the committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.^[40] Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area, such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland, generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.^[41] At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote, would decide most elections.^[42]

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.^[43]

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68, published on March 12, 1788, laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone, for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.^[44] Hamilton explained that the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public, in a time before telecommunications. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.^[44]

Another consideration was that the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place where decision makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,^[45] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" attaining high office.^[44]

Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy) combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.^[46]

Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase was first written into federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors".^[47]

History[edit | edit source]

Original plan[edit | edit source]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president.

According to Stanley Chang, the original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:^[48]

1. Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".^[49]
2. The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".^[50]
3. Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.^[51]
4. Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.^[49]
5. Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.

According to Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, the original intention of the framers was that the electors would not feel bound to support any particular candidate, but would vote their conscience, free of external pressure.

"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."^[52]

In support for his view, Justice Jackson cited Federalist No. 68:

'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 pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture... It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.'

Evolution to the general ticket[edit | edit source]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

According to Hamilton and Madison, they intended that this would take place district by district.^[53][54] The district plan was last carried out in Michigan in 1892.^[55] For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."^[56] In other words, the name of a candidate for president was not on the ballot. Instead, citizens voted for their local elector.

Some state leaders began to adopt the strategy that the favorite partisan presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.^[57] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.^[57]

When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly.^[53][54] Madison said that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts, and it was inconceivable that a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay:

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].^[58]

Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. However, Federalist No. 68, insofar as it reflects the intent of the founders, states that Electors will be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass," and with regard to choosing Electors, "they [the framers] have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America." Several methods for selecting electors are described below.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by the trend to "general tickets" that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan. Hamilton drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.^[59] However, Hamilton's untimely death in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 prevented him from advancing his proposed reforms any further. "[T]he election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.^[58] Madison also drafted a constitutional amendment that would insure the original "district" plan of the framers.^[60] Jefferson agreed with Hamilton and Madison saying, "all agree that an election by districts would be the best."^[55] Jefferson explained to Madison's correspondent why he was doubtful of the amendment being ratified: "the states are now so numerous that I despair of ever seeing another amendment of the constitution."^[61]

Evolution of selection plans[edit | edit source]

In 1789, the at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina).^{[62][failed verification]} New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York's legislature deadlocked and abstained; North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.^[63]

By 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.^[64]

By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860.^[64] Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.^[65]

Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice.^[66] Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.^[67]

Correlation between popular vote and electoral college votes[edit | edit source]

Since the mid-19th century, when all electors have been popularly chosen, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most (though not necessarily a majority) popular votes nationwide, except in four elections: 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. In 1824, when there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, the true national popular vote is uncertain. The electors in 1824 failed to select a winning candidate, so the matter was decided by the House of Representatives.^[68]

Fourteenth amendment[edit | edit source]

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state's representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote.

On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:^[69]

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.^[70]

Federal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) implements Section 2's mandate.

Meeting of electors[edit | edit source]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. And both Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and the Twelfth Amendment that replaced it specifies that "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."

In 1887, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act, now codified in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code, establishing specific procedures for the counting of the electoral votes. The law was passed in response to the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors. Among its provisions, the law established deadlines that the states must meet when selecting their electors, resolving disputes, and when they must cast their electoral votes.^[25][71]

Since 1936, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College is "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".^[72]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed federal officials from being electors. The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.^[73]

After the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a joint session of Congress, held on January 6^[74] unless another date is specified by law, and read aloud by the incumbent vice president, acting in his capacity as president of the Senate. If any person receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, that person is declared the winner.^[75] If there is a tie, or if no candidate for either or both offices receives an absolute majority, then choice falls to Congress in a procedure known as a contingent election.

Modern mechanics[edit | edit source]

Summary[edit | edit source]

Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the Federal Election Commission, the people only indirectly elect the president and vice president. The president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. Since the 1824 election, the majority of states have chosen their presidential electors based on winner-take-all results in the statewide popular vote on Election Day.^[76] As of 2020^[update], Maine and Nebraska are exceptions as both use the congressional district method, Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996.^[77] In most states, the popular vote ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket). The slate of electors that represent the winning ticket will vote for those two offices. Electors are nominated by the party and, usually, they vote for the ticket to which are promised.^[78] Many states require an elector to vote for the candidate to which the elector is pledged, but some "faithless electors" have voted for other candidates or refrained from voting. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the Twelfth Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote winners as vice president.

Electors[edit | edit source]

Apportionment[edit | edit source]

A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the United States Congress.^[79][80] Each state is entitled to at least one representative, the remaining number of representatives per state is apportioned based on their respective populations, determined every ten years by the United States census. In summary, 153 electors are divided equally among the states and the District of Columbia (3 each), and the remaining 385 are assigned by an apportionment among states.^[81]

Under the Twenty-third Amendment, Washington, D.C., is allocated as many electors as it would have if it were a state but no more electors than the least populous state. Because the least populous state (Wyoming, according to the 2020 census) has three electors, D.C. cannot have more than three electors. Even if D.C. were a state, its population would entitle it to only three electors. Based on its population per electoral vote, D.C. has the third highest per capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming and Vermont.^[82]

Currently, there are 538 electors, based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (54), Texas (40), Florida (30), New York (28), Illinois (19), and Pennsylvania (19). The District of Columbia and the six least populous states—Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming—have three electors each.^[83]

Nominations[edit | edit source]

The custom of allowing recognized political parties to select a slate of prospective electors developed early. In contemporary practice, each presidential-vice presidential ticket has an associated slate of potential electors. Then on Election Day, the voters select a ticket and thereby select the associated electors.^[27]

Candidates for elector are nominated by state chapters of nationally oriented political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some states, the electors are nominated by voters in primaries the same way other presidential candidates are nominated. In some states, such as Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina, electors are nominated in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committee of each candidate names their respective electoral college candidates (an attempt to discourage faithless electors). Varying by state, electors may also be elected by state legislatures or appointed by the parties themselves.^[84]

Selection process[edit | edit source]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, from being an elector.^[85] Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and later rebelled against the United States directly or by giving assistance to those doing so, is disqualified from being an elector. However, Congress may remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each House.

All states currently choose presidential electors by popular vote. As of 2020, eight states^[d] name the electors on the ballot. Mostly, the "short ballot" is used; the short ballot displays the names of the candidates for president and vice president, rather than the names of prospective electors.^[86] Some states support voting for write-in candidates; those that do may require pre-registration of write-in candidacy, with designation of electors being done at that time.^[87][88] Since 1996, all but two states have followed the winner takes all method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors.^[89][90] Maine and Nebraska are the only states not using this method.^[77] In those states, the winner of the popular vote in each of its congressional districts is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electors.^[89][91] This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996. The Supreme Court previously upheld the power for a state to choose electors on the basis of congressional districts, holding that states possess plenary power to decide how electors are appointed in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).

The Tuesday following the first Monday in November has been fixed as the day for holding federal elections, called the Election Day.^[92] After the election, each state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment, each listing the candidates for president and vice president, their pledged electors, and the total votes each candidacy received.^[93] One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the National Archivist in Washington. The Certificates of Ascertainment are mandated to carry the state seal and the signature of the governor (or mayor of D.C.).^[94]

Meetings[edit | edit source]

External media
Images
File:Searchtool.svg A 2020 Pennsylvania elector holds a ballot for Joe Biden (Biden's name is handwritten on the blank line). Reuters. December 14, 2020.
File:Searchtool.svg A closeup of the 2020 Georgia Electoral College ballot for Kamala Harris (using a format in which Harris's name is checked on the pre-printed card). The New Yorker. December 18, 2020.
Video
2020 California State Electoral College meeting, YouTube video. Reuters. December 14, 2020.

The Electoral College never meets as one body. Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the same day (set by Congress as the Monday after the second Wednesday in December) at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president.^[95][96][97]

Although procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps. The meeting is opened by the election certification official—often that state's secretary of state or equivalent—who reads the certificate of ascertainment. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the electoral votes. The attendance of the electors is taken and any vacancies are noted in writing. The next step is the selection of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many states, political officials give short speeches at this point in the proceedings.

When the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the candidate for president of the political party of the electors). Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. The next step is the casting of the vote for vice president, which follows a similar pattern.

Under the Electoral Count Act (updated and codified in 3 U.S.C. § 9), each state's electors must complete six certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote (or Certificate of the Vote) must be signed by all of the electors and a certificate of ascertainment must be attached to each of the certificates of vote. Each Certificate of Vote must include the names of those who received an electoral vote for either the office of president or of vice president. The electors certify the Certificates of Vote, and copies of the certificates are then sent in the following fashion:^[98]

• One is sent by registered mail to the President of the Senate (who usually is the incumbent vice president of the United States);
• Two are sent by registered mail to the Archivist of the United States;
• Two are sent to the states' secretary of state; and
• One is sent to the chief judge of the United States district court where those electors met.

A staff member of the President of the Senate collects the certificates of vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of the Congress. The certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical order and placed in two special mahogany boxes. Alabama through Missouri (including the District of Columbia) are placed in one box and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box.^[99] Before 1950, the Secretary of State's office oversaw the certifications, but since then the Office of Federal Register in the Archivist's office reviews them to make sure the documents sent to the archive and Congress match and that all formalities have been followed, sometimes requiring states to correct the documents.^[73]

Faithless electors[edit | edit source]

An elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector.^[100] A "faithless elector" is one who does not cast an electoral vote for the candidate of the party for whom that elector pledged to vote. Faithless electors are comparatively rare because electors are generally chosen among those who are already personally committed to a party and party's candidate.^[101] Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have laws against faithless electors,^[102] which were first enforced after the 2016 election, where ten electors voted or attempted to vote contrary to their pledges. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. Altogether, 23,529 electors have taken part in the Electoral College as of the 2016 election; only 165 electors have cast votes for someone other than their party's nominee. Of that group, 71 did so because the nominee had died – 63 Democratic Party electors in 1872, when presidential nominee Horace Greeley died; and eight Republican Party electors in 1912, when vice presidential nominee James S. Sherman died.^[103]

While faithless electors have never changed the outcome of any presidential election, there are two occasions where the vice presidential election has been influenced by faithless electors:

• In the 1796 election, 18 electors pledged to the Federalist Party ticket cast their first vote as pledged for John Adams, electing him president, but did not cast their second vote for his running mate Thomas Pinckney. As a result, Adams attained 71 electoral votes, Jefferson received 68, and Pinckney received 59, meaning Jefferson, rather than Pinckney, became vice president.^[104]
• In the 1836 election, Virginia's 23 electors, who were pledged to Richard Mentor Johnson, voted instead for former U.S. Senator William Smith, which left Johnson one vote short of the majority needed to be elected. In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment, a contingent election was held in the Senate between the top two receivers of electoral votes, Johnson and Francis Granger, for vice president, with Johnson being elected on the first ballot.^[105]

Some constitutional scholars argued that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.^[106] However, the United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that state restrictions are allowed under the Constitution. In Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), the Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), and a related case, the Court held that electors must vote in accord with their state's laws.^[107][108] Faithless electors also may face censure from their political party, as they are usually chosen based on their perceived party loyalty.^[109]

Joint session of Congress[edit | edit source]

External video
A joint session of Congress confirms the 2020 electoral college results, YouTube video. Global News. January 6, 2021.

The Twelfth Amendment mandates Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.^[110] The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.^[111] Since the Twentieth Amendment, the newly elected joint Congress declares the winner of the election; all elections before 1936 were determined by the outgoing House.

The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College.^[73] The meeting is held at 1 p.m. in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.^[111] The sitting vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the president pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings. The vice president and the speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the vice president sitting to the right of the speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the senators and representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote (normally one member of each political party). Relevant portions of the certificate of vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order.

Before an amendment to the law in 2022, members of Congress could object to any state's vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. In 2022, the number of members required to make an objection was raised to one-fifth of each House. An appropriately made objection is followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each House of Congress; after both Houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed.

A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection via a simple majority,^[112] meaning the votes from the State in question are not counted. Individual votes can also be rejected, and are also not counted.

If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a state's votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally.

After the certificates from all states are read and the respective votes are counted, the presiding officer simply announces the final state of the vote. This announcement concludes the joint session and formalizes the recognition of the president-elect and of the vice president-elect. The senators then depart from the House chamber. The final tally is printed in the Senate and House journals.

Historical objections and rejections[edit | edit source]

Objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it has occurred a few times.

• 1864, all votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected because of the American Civil War.
• 1872, all votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected, due to allegations of electoral fraud, and due to submitting votes for a candidate that had died.^[113]
• 1876, after the crises of the 1876 election, where in a few states it was claimed there were two competing state governments, and thus competing slates of electors, Congress adopted the Electoral Count Act to regularize objection procedure.^[114]
• 2001, during the vote count after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Vice President Al Gore. The election had been controversial, and its outcome was decided by the court case Bush v. Gore. Gore, who as vice president was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised by representatives and would have favored his candidacy, after no senators would agree to jointly object.
• 2004, objections were raised in the vote count of the 2004 election, alleging voter suppression and machine irregularities in Ohio, and on that occasion one representative and one senator objected, following protocols mandated by the Electoral Count Act. The joint session was suspended as outlined in these protocols, and the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both Houses of Congress.
• 2016, eleven objections were raised during the vote count for the 2016 election, all by various Democratic representatives. As no senator joined the representatives in any objection, all objections were blocked by Vice President Joe Biden.^[115]
• 2020, two objections were raised, and the proceeding was temporarily interrupted by a protest at the U.S. Capitol over concerns of voter fraud. President Donald Trump and several congressional members wanted an investigation into the irregularities. Objections to the votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania were each raised by a House member and a senator, and triggered separate debate in each chamber, but were defeated.^[116] A few House members raised objections to the votes from Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, but they could not move forward because no senator joined in those objections.^[117]

Contingencies[edit | edit source]

Contingent presidential election by House[edit | edit source]

If no candidate for president receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes), then the Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to go into session immediately to choose a president. In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes en bloc—each delegation having a single vote; the District of Columbia does not get to vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., from 1959 (which is the last time a new state was admitted to the union), a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.

The House of Representatives has been required to choose the president only twice: in 1801 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; and in 1825 under the Twelfth Amendment.

Contingent vice presidential election by Senate[edit | edit source]

If no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to choose a vice president. The Senate is limited to choosing from the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. Normally this would mean two candidates, one less than the number of candidates available in the House vote. However, the text is written in such a way that all candidates with the most and second-most electoral votes are eligible for the Senate election—this number could theoretically be larger than two. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each senator, not by state delegations). However, two-thirds of the senators must be present for voting to take place.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election.^[118] Further, the language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur,^[119] although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.^[120]

The only time the Senate chose the vice president was in 1837. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical roll call and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "[I]f a majority of the number of senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States"; the Senate chose Johnson.^[121]

Deadlocked election[edit | edit source]

Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon EST on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. Neither of these situations has ever arisen.

Current electoral vote distribution[edit | edit source]

Electoral votes (EV) allocations for the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections.^[122]
Triangular markers () indicate gains or losses following the 2020 census.^[123]

EV × States	States*
54 × 1 = 54	California
40 × 1 = 40	Texas
30 × 1 = 30	Florida
28 × 1 = 28	New York
19 × 2 = 38	Illinois, Pennsylvania
17 × 1 = 17	Ohio
16 × 2 = 32	Georgia, North Carolina
15 × 1 = 15	Michigan
14 × 1 = 14	New Jersey
13 × 1 = 13	Virginia
12 × 1 = 12	Washington
11 × 4 = 44	Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee
10 × 5 = 50	Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin
9 × 2 = 18	Alabama, South Carolina
8 × 3 = 24	Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon
7 × 2 = 14	Connecticut, Oklahoma
6 × 6 = 36	Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah
5 × 2 = 10	Nebraska**, New Mexico
4 × 7 = 28	Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia
3 × 7 = 21	Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming
= 538	Total electors

* The Twenty-third Amendment grants DC the same number of electors as the least populous state. This has always been three.

** Maine's four electors and Nebraska's five are distributed using the Congressional district method.

Chronological table[edit | edit source]

Source: Presidential Elections 1789–2000 at Psephos (Adam Carr's Election Archive)
Note: In 1788, 1792, 1796, and 1800, each elector cast two votes for president.

This cartogram shows the number of electors from each state for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Following the 2010 census, New York and Ohio lost two electoral votes, 8 states lost one,^[e] 6 states gained one,^[f] Florida gained two, and Texas gained four.

Alternative methods of choosing electors[edit | edit source]

Before the advent of the "short ballot" in the early 20th century (as described in Selection process) the most common means of electing the presidential electors was through the general ticket. The general ticket is quite similar to the current system and is often confused with it. In the general ticket, voters cast ballots for individuals running for presidential elector (while in the short ballot, voters cast ballots for an entire slate of electors). In the general ticket, the state canvass would report the number of votes cast for each candidate for elector, a complicated process in states like New York with multiple positions to fill. Both the general ticket and the short ballot are often considered at-large or winner-takes-all voting. The short ballot was adopted by the various states at different times; it was adopted for use by North Carolina and Ohio in 1932. Alabama was still using the general ticket as late as 1960 and was one of the last states to switch to the short ballot.

The question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature's choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), the Court cited Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and wrote these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power". In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), a Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on McPherson. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), wrote: "[N]othing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the State Constitution that created it."^[125] Extensive research on alternate methods of electoral allocation have been conducted by Collin Welke, Dylan Shearer, and Riley Wagie in 2019.

Appointment by state legislature[edit | edit source]

In the earliest presidential elections, state legislative choice was the most common method of choosing electors. A majority of the state legislatures selected presidential electors in both 1792 (9 of 15) and 1800 (10 of 16), and half of them did so in 1812.^[126] Even in the 1824 election, a quarter of state legislatures (6 of 24) chose electors. (In that election, Andrew Jackson lost in spite of having a plurality of both the popular vote and the number of electoral votes representing them;^[127] yet, as six states did not hold a popular election for their electoral votes, the full expression of the popular vote nationally cannot be known.) Some state legislatures simply chose electors, while other states used a hybrid method in which state legislatures chose from a group of electors elected by popular vote.^[128] By 1828, with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, only Delaware and South Carolina used legislative choice.^[127] Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832), while South Carolina continued using the method until it seceded from the Union in December 1860.^[127] South Carolina used the popular vote for the first time in the 1868 election.^[129]

Excluding South Carolina, legislative appointment was used in only four situations after 1832:

• In 1848, Massachusetts statute awarded the state's electoral votes to the winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner between the Democratic, Free Soil, and Whig parties, the state legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to the Whigs (which had won the plurality of votes in the state).^[130]
• In 1864, Nevada, having joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no choice but to legislatively appoint.^[130]
• In 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida legislatively appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections.^[130]
• Finally, in 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold a popular election.^[130]

Legislative appointment was brandished as a possibility in the 2000 election. Had the recount continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal safe-harbor deadline for choosing electors.^[131]

The Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state's electors are chosen^[127] and it can be easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature can have negative consequences: bicameral legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. This is precisely what happened to New York in 1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.^[132]

Electoral districts[edit | edit source]

Another method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state into electoral districts. By this method, voters in each district would cast their ballots for the electors they supported and the winner in each district would become the elector. This was similar to how states are currently separated into congressional districts. However, the difference stems from the fact that every state always had two more electoral districts than congressional districts. As with congressional districts, moreover, this method is vulnerable to gerrymandering.

Congressional district method[edit | edit source]

There are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another was used in New York in 1828 and proposed for use in Virginia. Under the implemented method, one electoral vote goes per the plurality of the popular votes of each congressional district (for the U.S. House of Representatives); and two per the statewide popular vote. This may result in greater proportionality. But it can give results similar to the winner-takes-all states, as in 1992, when George H. W. Bush won all five of Nebraska's electoral votes with a clear plurality on 47% of the vote; in a truly proportional system, he would have received three and Bill Clinton and Ross Perot each would have received one.^[133]

In 2013, the Virginia proposal was tabled. Like the other congressional district methods, this would have distributed the electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia's 11 congressional districts; the two statewide electoral votes would be awarded based on which candidate won the most congressional districts.^[134] A similar method was used in New York in 1828: the two at large electors were elected by the electors selected in districts.

A congressional district method is more likely to arise than other alternatives to the winner-takes-whole-state method, in view of the main two parties' resistance to scrap first-past-the-post. State legislation is sufficient to use this method.^[135] Advocates of the method believe the system encourages higher voter turnout or incentivizes candidates, to visit and appeal to some states deemed safe, overall, for one party.^[136] Winner-take-all systems ignore thousands of votes; in Democratic California there are Republican districts, in Republican Texas there are Democratic districts. Because candidates have an incentive to campaign in competitive districts, with a district plan, candidates have an incentive to actively campaign in over thirty states versus about seven "swing" states.^[137][138] Opponents of the system, however, argue candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state and cases of gerrymandering could become exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe districts as they can.^[139]

Unlike simple congressional district comparisons, the district plan popular vote bonus in the 2008 election would have given Obama 56% of the Electoral College versus the 68% he did win; it "would have more closely approximated the percentage of the popular vote won [53%]".^[140] However, the district plan would have given Obama 49% of the Electoral College in 2012, and would have given Romney a win in the Electoral College even though Obama won the popular vote by nearly 4% (51.1–47.2) over Romney.^[141]

Implementation[edit | edit source]

Of the 44 multi-district states whose 517 electoral votes are amenable to the method, only Maine (4 EV) and Nebraska (5 EV) apply it. Maine began using the congressional district method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the congressional district method since the election of 1992.^[142][143] Michigan used the system for the 1892 presidential election,^{[133][144][145]} and several other states used various forms of the district plan before 1840: Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and New York.^[146]

The congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, neither Maine nor Nebraska had ever split their electoral votes.^[133] Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.^[147] Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the congressional district method and return to the winner-takes-all system.^[148] In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system;^[149] the bill died in committee in March 2011.^[150] Republicans had passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to do the same, which were vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.^[148]

Recent abandoned adoption in other states[edit | edit source]

In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so this was seen an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Democrat Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008 with 55% of its vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage.^[151][152] The plan later lost support.^[153] Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative Pete Lund,^[154] RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have floated similar ideas.^[155][156]

Proportional vote[edit | edit source]

In a proportional system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected by the statewide plurality vote.^[157]

See also[edit | edit source]

• Democratic backsliding in the United States
• List of states and territories of the United States by population
• Lists of United States presidential electors (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020)
• Trump fake electors plot
• Voter turnout in United States presidential elections

Notes[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

• Beeman, Richard (2010). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House. ISBN 9780812976847.

Bundled references

Works cited[edit | edit source]

• Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (PDF) (Report). U.S. Government Publishing Office. December 22, 2022. Retrieved July 7, 2023.
• Report on the Electoral Count Act of 1887: Proposals for Reform (PDF) (Report). United States House Committee on House Administration. 2022. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
• Rybicki, Elizabeth; Whitaker, L. Paige (December 8, 2020). Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
• Neale, Thomas H. (October 9, 2020). Presidential Elections: Vacancies in Major-Party Candidacies and the Position of President-Elect (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
• Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. August 18, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
• Neale, Thomas H. (July 14, 2020). Presidential Succession: Perspectives and Contemporary Issues for Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 19, 2023.
• Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume II of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
• Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I of II (PDF) (Report). United States Department of Justice. June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
• Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 2: Russia's Use of Social Media with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. October 8, 2019. Retrieved June 23, 2023.
• Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volume 1: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views (PDF) (Report). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. July 25, 2019. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
• Preserving Our Institutions: The Continuity of the Presidency (PDF) (Report). Continuity of Government Commission. June 2009. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
• Rossiter, Clinton, ed. (2003). The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics. ISBN 9780451528810.
• "Third Session of the 42nd Congress". United States Senate Journal. Library of Congress. 68: 334–346. February 12, 1873. Retrieved July 1, 2023.

Further reading[edit | edit source]

• Eric Foner, "The Corrupt Bargain" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151; and Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, St Martin's Press, 2020, 304 pp., ISBN 978-1250221971), London Review of Books, vol. 42, no. 10 (May 21, 2020), pp. 3, 5–6. Foner concludes (p. 6): "Rooted in distrust of ordinary citizens and, like so many other features of American life, in the institution of slavery, the electoral college is a relic of a past the United States should have abandoned long ago."
• Erikson, Robert S.; Sigman, Karl; Yao, Linan (2020). "Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (45): 27940–944. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11727940E. doi:10.1073/pnas.2013581117. PMC 7668185. PMID 33106408.
• Michael Kazin, "The Creaky Old System: Is the real threat to American democracy one of its own institutions?" (review of Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, Harvard, 2020, 544 pp., ISBN 978-0674660151), The Nation, vol. 311, no. 7 (October 5/12, 2020), pp. 42–44. Kazin writes: "James Madison [...] sought to replace [the Electoral College] with a national popular vote [...]. [p. 43.] [W]e endure with the most ridiculous system [on earth] for producing our head of state and government [...]." (p. 44.)
• George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, second ed., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0300166491.

External links[edit | edit source]

Wikisource has the text of the 1905 New International Encyclopedia article "Electoral College".

• The Electoral College by the National Conference of State Legislatures
• The Electoral College by the National Archives and Records Administration