U.S. Electoral College

The United States Electoral College is the electoral college which chooses the President and Vice President of the United States at the conclusion of each Presidential election. The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the U.S. Constitution and meets every four years with electors from each state. The electoral process was modified in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment and again in 1961 with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment.

Pros and Cons

Supporters of the college

More fairness for rural America and greater diversity of represented groups

Supporters of the college claim that the system protects rural communities and smaller states from the interests of urban centers and large states. Without the Electoral College, with the vote based on majority rule, it would be possible to win a strict majority of votes by campaigning only in a few densely populated areas of the country. A candidate could theoretically focus resources, time, and political capital solely on winning votes in a handful of large cities in order to win the election. It is felt that this pressure would lead to voters in the sparsely populated West being completely ignored. Thus, the intent of the college is to favor a candidate whose appeal is more broadly distributed on a geographical basis across the nation. Opponents claim the focus on "swing states" in the current system is equally problematic.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Easier recounts

In the event of an extremely close election, such as the 2000 presidential election, having the Electoral College makes doing a recount much easier, since it may only be necessary to recount in a single state, rather than the entire nation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Less incentive for election fraud

Electoral College supporters also believe that the system serves to dampen the consequences of potential election fraud. Fraudulent votes manufactured in one state can only affect the distribution of that state's limited number of electoral votes, any votes beyond a majority in that state have no further effect nationwide. In a pure direct election any number of fraudulent votes would have a direct impact on the results nationwide. However, opponents claim that in an Electoral College model, voting fraud is a larger problem. In a popular vote system, it is claimed, fraudulent votes could become essentially neutralized by the large amount of legal votes across the nation, while with the College, with state-sized contests, fraudulent votes could garner a larger effect.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The philosophy of federalism

Many conservatives defend the electoral college not out of necessarily practical arguments, but out of the argument that the electoral college is a symbol of federalism. These defenders, such as US Senator Mitch McConnell, point out that American states are semi-sovereign, not mere administration units. They claim that the electoral college reinforces that residual sovereignty. Conceding that the electoral college violates the principle of "one man, one vote," federalist defenders of the college remind that the United States Senate violates "one man, one vote" even more seriously. Finally, these defenders of the college assert that the United States is a "republic, not a democracy."

Related Topics:
Federalism - Mitch McConnell - United States Senate

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Detractors of the college

U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Arlen Specter both called for the abolition of the Electoral College in 2000 after the electoral debacle; however, this motion did not reach fruition.

Related Topics:
U.S. Senators - Hillary Clinton - Arlen Specter - 2000

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Most electoral reform plans in the US include ways to abolish the College.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Disenfranchisement and inequality of voters

Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equal vote, regardless of what state they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in small states. In contrast, the Electoral College disenfranchises those voters in every state who cast their votes for the candidate receiving fewer votes in that state. And it also partly disenfranchises voters in larger states by reducing their proportional contribution to the final election result. For example, in 1988 the combined voting age population of the six least populous states (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) plus the District of Columbia was 3,119,000, and carrying 21 Electoral votes between them. The State of Florida, which had 9,614,000 persons of voting age carried exactly the same number of Electoral College votes: 21. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other states listed.

Related Topics:
1988 - Alaska - Delaware - North Dakota - South Dakota - Vermont - Wyoming - District of Columbia - State of Florida

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents counter that electoral votes are worth more when they are bunched up together. In other words, 21 electors are worth more than 7 sets of 3 electors, because 21 EVs could easily turn the result of the election, while a person voting in a 3-electoral vote state would not have such a proportionally large effect on the result.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Losing the popular vote

In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 the loser of the popular vote became president. This has been called disenfranchisement of the people.

Related Topics:
1824 - 1876 - 1888 - 2000

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents counter that the Electoral College asks candidates to garner more widespread support across the Union; a popular vote system could elect a person who wins by a large margin in a few states over another person who wins by small margins in most states. The latter candidate, they argue, has to appeal to a broader array of interests than the former and is less likely to be a demagogue or extremist.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Focus on large swing states

While attention is often given to the granting of a disproportionate number of electoral votes to smaller states, often overlooked is another part of the electoral system: most states use a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes. Candidates will pay more attention to larger states without a clear favorite. California, Texas, and New York, in spite of having the largest populations, are usually considered safe for a particular party, and will therefore be ignored by candidates (except for fundraising efforts). Small states such as New Mexico which are winnable for both major parties, but yield a small number of electoral votes also tend to be ignored by candidates. Large "swing states" like Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia are usually considered winnable for both major parties and a large number of electoral votes turn on their results, and so candidates tend to disproportionately spend more time on these close states, at the expense of the voters in "safe states" or small states.

Related Topics:
California - Texas - New York - New Mexico - Swing states - Florida - Ohio - West Virginia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents claim, however, that adoption of the popular vote would simply shift the disproportionate focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Paradoxical effects of the House size

One little-known (and undesirable) quality of the Electoral College system is the fact that in close elections, the exact number of seats in the House of Representatives becomes a crucial factor in deciding the outcome. The current House size of 435 seats was fixed by federal law in 1910, not by the constitution, and Congress could change it at will. Since the number of Senators is fixed by the constitution to exactly twice the number of States, enlarging the House would lessen the advantage of smaller states in Presidential elections, while downsizing it would strengthen their advantage. If we take the popular votes cast at the Election of 2000 and the population figures of the 1990 U.S. Census with the consequential apportionment of House seats to the states as a given, George W. Bush would have won the election for all House sizes less than 491, while Al Gore would have won for all house sizes greater than 598 (except at 655, which gives a tie). In between those two numbers, the winner unsystematically oscillates back and forth many times -- of the 105 house sizes between those numbers, there is a 269/269 tie 23 times, Bush wins 53 times and Gore wins 29 times. The effect is comparable to the Alabama paradox which caused states to actually lose House seats by increasing the House size in certain circumstances, and which led to the introduction of a more mathematically sound method of reapportionment in the late 19th century.

Related Topics:
1910 - Election of 2000 - U.S. Census - Apportionment - George W. Bush - Al Gore - Alabama paradox - 19th century

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Untrue hidden assumption of local uniformity

It is also worth pointing out that the Electoral College assumes that voters within states vote monolithically, when in fact this is not the case. Many states are often deeply divided over how to vote in a Presidential election. A key element of democracy is that voters disagree among themselves on what they consider their interests, and this happens within states as well as between states. Thus, for example, in the 2000 election, New Hampshire (a small state) gave 48% of its votes to Bush, and 47% to Gore. According to the pro-Electoral College model, as a small state, New Hampshire necessarily voted for its own local interests in supporting Bush. This in itself skews the campaign process, as candidates focus their efforts on states whose electoral votes are in question, rather than individual voters whose ballots are in play, and may contribute to broader sectional divisions. This is one critique that makes proportional representation in the Electoral College seem more appropriate as reflective of such innate divisions and pluralities in all electorates.

Related Topics:
New Hampshire - Bush - Gore

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unfair disadvantage for third parties

Opponents also argue that the method by which most states allot their electoral votes tends to favor a two-party system. Even when a third-party candidate receives a significant number of popular votes, he may not receive a plurality in any state and may not garner even a single electoral vote, as was the case of Ross Perot, who won 18% of the popular vote in the 1992 elections. Proponents usually counter by stating that a third-party candidate with enough votes to win will usually be able to garner some electoral votes, and these electors might even hold the balance of power. However, this is a critique of the conflict of interest allocation strategies employed within a state (either majoritarian/"first past the post" or by gerrymandered districts), and thus a critique of the allocation is not necessarily a critique of the Electoral College--which can actually enhance third party vote bases. (See Proportional Representation in the Electoral College, below). Besides, most third parties start and have strengths as regional phenomena. Removing the Electoral College--i.e., removing a form of regional allocation--would demote such geographic knowledges in politics from registering and thus hamper third party demographic appeals.

Related Topics:
Ross Perot - 1992 elections

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Elections ending up decided by Congress

Another aspect of the electoral college with which its detractors find fault is the situation that could arise if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes. In several elections of the Twentieth century, 1912, 1948, 1960, and 1968, third party candidates won electoral votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility in a three-way race that no candidate would reach the magic 270 number. Even in a two-way race, it is possible for neither candidate to win a majority (by tying 269-269). If no candidate hit 270, the election would go to the House, where the Constitution provides that each state delegation would have one vote, regardless of its population. This gives small states an even stronger advantage than they have in the College. If the House election tied, or if enough delegations split evenly, the situation would become more complicated. In this situation, section 3 of the 20th amendment would take control. Assuming that the Senate were able to choose a Vice President-Elect, he would become the acting President until the Congress could devise a method for choosing a President. If the Senate were unable to choose a Vice President-Elect, then the Speaker of the House, the next in line in the order of succession to the presidency, would act as president until either a President-elect or Vice President-elect could be determined.

Related Topics:
1912 - 1948 - 1960 - 1968

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Supporters of an Electoral College with modified rules

Some argue that their greatest objections to the electoral college can be acceptably mitigated by modifying the rules by which votes are allocated.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proportional vote

The primary proposal of this type is for states to implement a proportional vote system. Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected to represent only the plurality vote. As an example, consider the 2000 election, in which the George W. Bush / Richard Cheney (Republican) and Albert Gore Jr. / Joseph Lieberman (Democrat) tickets were the primary contenders, with the Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (Green) ticket taking a small but noteworthy minority. In California, the approximate proportion of votes for these tickets was 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Under the current system, all 54 electoral votes were for Gore/Lieberman. Under a simple proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke.

Related Topics:
Richard Cheney - Joseph Lieberman - Ralph Nader - Winona LaDuke - Green

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Without an auditable vote trail to prove it, the Elections commission of the state of Colorado claims citizens in Colorado voted down an initiative on its 2004 ballot, Amendment 36, which would have instituted a system of proportional allocation of electors beginning immediately with the 2004 Colorado electoral college members. A poll taken in Colorado a month before the initiative showed it was an easy passage. However, in that intevening month, according to a Greg Palast investigative report:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson...removed several thousand voters from the state's voter rolls. She tagged felons as barred from voting. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that, unlike like Florida and a handful of other Deep South states, Colorado does not bar ex-cons from voting . Only those actually serving their sentence lose their rights....To exempt her action from the federal rule, Secretary Davidson declared an "emergency." However, the only "emergency" in Colorado seems to be President Bush's running dead, even with John Kerry in the polls. Why the sudden urge to purge? Davidson's chief of voting law enforcement is Drew Durham, who previously worked for the attorney general of Texas. This is what the former spokesman for the Lone Star State's attorney general says of Mr. Durham: He is "unfit for public office... a man with a history of racism and ideological zealotry." Sounds just right for a purge that affects, in the majority, non-white voters. From my own and government investigations of such purge lists, it is unlikely that this one contains many, if any, illegal voters. But it does contain Democrats. The Dems may not like to shout about this, but studies indicate that 90-some percent of people who have served time for felonies will, after prison, vote Democratic. One suspects Colorado's Republican secretary of state knows that." http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/301768.shtml

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In other words, election fraud was a contributor to the skewed outcome--and likely electronic vote fraud as well--given the huge disparities with the "reported" totals versus the poll totals. Likely electronic vote fraud was employed to radically invent a totally bogus initiative outcome than the polls showed would be the outcome a month before. The "danger of a good example" was averted by one (and perhaps two) vote frauds.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Amendment 36's argument was in favor of a fairer allocation. The argument against it was that it would end Colorado's status as a swing state. Instead of candidates vying for all nine of Colorado's votes, they would be going for one, assuming the most likely outcome of a 5-4 split one way or the other. However, the assumption there is that the same party demographic will remain in power after the switch, which is a large assumption once voters are given wider choices and a means to act on them.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some contend that a major problem with dividing electoral votes proportionally is that it would be harder for a single candidate or single party to "wipe the board" and achieve domination in the electoral vote, since a proportional system would enable a third party candidate to win electoral votes. However, that would only be so if candidates or parties continue to refuse to adapt their strategies to be more representative and to earn their votes. They would therefore be punished for maintaining low popularity appeals instead of rewarded for it--the latter is the incentive of the "first past the post" framework. Moreover, elections are not run for the benefit of making states "secure" for particular parties or to let them win votes easily: they have to work for it. Proportional representation in the Electoral College vote would assure a more competitive party framework, and a more competitive party framework assures that all parties are foreced to appeal more accurately to the people in the state regardless.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Others contend that if this system had been used in 1992 and 1996, and all electors had voted as pledged, there would have been no winner at all, and the House of Representatives would have chosen the president, whilst the Senate selected the Vice-President. In 1996 Robert Dole would almost certainly have been the House winner, and Jack Kemp the Senate, as well, despite receiving significantly fewer votes than Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In 2000, Al Gore would have received 269 electoral votes, George W. Bush 263, and Ralph Nader 6. If all electors voted as pledged, the Presidential race would have gone to the House, and Bush likely would have won, but the Vice Presidential decision in the Senate would have likely split 51-50 for Lieberman, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote. However, first, that is based on the assumption that these totals would remain constant in the changed voting context, and the second assumption that parties hold to their same election strategies and appeals. Both of these assumptions are false under a changed election tallying dynamic. In short, these contentions fail to take into account how the dynamic for informal parties is changed so the same numbers cannot be used for the comparison.

Related Topics:
Robert Dole - Jack Kemp

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However, second, this argument misses--and even inverts--the purpose of elections: not to make a state a "one party fief", but instead to elect someone that is actually representative. Elections are not to be conducted on the criteria that it is important to assure that a single candidate can already "pre-own" the votes of a whole state. That leads to laziness in the candidate or party, and only leads to forms of voter abuse and lack of representation in the candidate in question. Instead, the point of elections are to be representative and competitive: to make candidates compete against one another for the whole voting electorate. Proportional representation sets up that dynamic of inter-party competition that makes all parties more representative in their attempts to enfranchise 100% of the vote, instead of compete for the same small fraction of the vote. Those who contend that party strategies will remain static misjudge how parties are punished if they fail to alter and widen their base of appeals. In this manner, proportional representation in the Electoral College vote makes for a more competitive democracy, which is in the interests of all voters--though obviously not in the interests of all parties.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maine-Nebraska method

Other observers argue that the current electoral rules of Maine and Nebraska should be extended nationwide. As previously noted, the winner in those two states is only guaranteed two electoral votes, with the winner of each Congressional district in the state receiving one electoral vote. Using the California example again, Gore won 33 of the state's Congressional districts and the state overall, while Bush won 19 Congressional districts. The state's electoral votes would then have gone 35-19 for Gore.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However, this kind of allocation would still make it possible for the loser of the popular vote to become president. If every state used the Maine-Nebraska system, George W. Bush would have won in 2000 by an even larger electoral college majority than he did with winner-take-all. Also, dividing electoral votes by House district winners would create yet another incentive for partisan gerrymandering. In 1960, if a district system had been used Richard Nixon would have been elected, despite losing the popular vote.

Related Topics:
Gerrymandering - Richard Nixon

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another problem with this suggestion is that it would actually further increase the advantage of small states. In winner-take-all, the small states' disproportionally high number of electors is partially offset by the fact that large states with their big electoral blocks are such a highly desirable boon to a candidate that large swing states actually receive much more attention during the campaign than smaller states. In proportional representation or Maine-Nebraska, this advantage of the large states would be gone.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yet another problem with both Maine-Nebraska and proportional representation is that even if it is considered superior as a nationwide system, winner-take-all generally maximizes the power of an individual state and thus while it might be in the interest of the nation, it is not in the interest of the state to adopt any other system. Since the U.S. constitution gives the states the power to chose their method of appointing the electors, nationwide Maine-Nebraska without a constitutional amendment mandating it seems unlikely, and the passage of such an amendment seems equally unlikely since the House delegations of the largest states (against whose interests such a system would be), taken together, easily surpass the one third of the House size that is needed to block a constitutional amendment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Abolishing the non-proportional electors ("drop two")

Another proposed reform is to make the number of electors that each state has the same as its number of Representatives (effectively the same as the current system, except taking two electoral votes from each state). This plan, sometimes called "drop two," would still over-represent the very smallest states -- those who receive their one seat in the House only because every state receives at least one --, but would make the over-representation much less significant. If such a system had been in place in 2000, Al Gore would have won in the Electoral College 225-211.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents of this suggestion say that this will preserve the Electoral College's benefits and make the system more democratic at the same time. Others say this will remove the extra power given to the small states intended to make elections fairer and there would still exist the phenomenon of non-swing states being ignored.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Popular vote bonus method

Some have advocated retaining the Electoral College, but allotting a certain number of electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote. This method could encourage voters in non-swing states to cast ballots, since their votes could still help their candidate win the popular vote. A common suggestion for implementing this variation is to award a block of electoral votes equal to half the number of electoral votes cast by the most populous state to the popular vote winner. Under such a system, Gore would have won in the College, 293-271, with the 27 "at large" electoral votes (equal to half of California's 54) awarded to Gore.

Related Topics:
Swing states - California

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Adoption of this method would theoretically prevent the winner of the popular vote from losing the election.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Alternative systems

Majority vs. plurality

The Electoral College requires a majority vote in order for a victor to be declared. In the case of a hypothetical direct election with multiple candidates, the question of majority versus plurality comes into play. In many recent American presidential elections (1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000), no single candidate achieved an absolute majority of the popular vote. Some nations with direct presidential voting, such as France, have a second round of voting if no candidate achieves a majority of votes in the first round; in the second round, the election is restricted to the two candidates with the highest number of votes. Some have argued that the French system creates problems of its own; it is possible that the initial vote becomes divided up between so many candidates that someone who is highly undesirable to most voters can make it to the second round of voting, as occurred in 2002 with the rise of candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen to the runoff election. One solution to this problem would be to implement an alternative election system, such as instant runoff voting, approval voting, or condorcet voting. However critics of those methods contend that they are too difficult to understand for a sizable portion of the population, and would thus result in many people casting spoiled ballots or ballots that do not correspond to what they actually want to vote for.

Related Topics:
Majority - Plurality - 1948 - 1960 - 1968 - 1992 - 1996 - 2000 - France - Second round of voting - 2002 - Jean-Marie Le Pen - Instant runoff voting - Approval voting - Condorcet voting

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Weighted direct voting

Another possibility is to have direct voting, but give smaller states more weight per vote to more or less match the current small-state favoritism. Small states may be more motivated to support a constitutional voting system change as long as they keep their favoritism. For example, an individual in a populous state may be assigned 0.91 votes, while somebody from a small state may be assigned 1.08 votes. Under this system, candidates would have more incentive to campaign in all states. However since such a system would make the small state advantage more directly obvious to the general public than the current system, it is unlikely to receive support in the large states. In addition, many electoral college opponents would consider this system contradictory to the entire point of abolishing the electoral college: the principle of one person, one vote. Weighted direct voting can be merged with proportional representation in the Electoral College as well: by simply giving an elector the percentage of the vote received by a candidate in a particular state, divided by the number of parties down to a suitable level. In other words with an example, State A gets three electors who have the vote power of the exact percentages of the three candidates they represent and this varies with the election: a return of Candidates X, Y, and Z, of .34, .20, .46 of the vote, means three electors from that state with the power to vote .34, .20, .46 of a state's electoral vote. Another State B, with Candidates W, X, Y, and Z with .12, .34, .20, .34 of a state's electoral vote yields four electors with the power to vote .12, .34, .20, .34 of State B's electoral vote. This avoids the additional level of manipulation of any weighted averages and the proportional total of the vote is its own weighted average.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Political probabilities

Despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, it appears that large majorities of Americans favor a direct popular vote. In a 1968 Gallup survey, 81% of Americans favored a direct popular vote, 12% favored retention, and 7% had no opinion. In 1992, pollsters asked Americans this question, "If Perot runs, there is a chance that no presidential candidate will get enough electoral votes to win. If that happens, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to decide who will be the next President. Do you think that is a fair way to choose the President, or should the Constitution be changed?" 31% said it was a fair way, and 61% said the Constitution should be changed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

By some counts, there have been over seven hundred proposed amendments to the Constitution to change, or abolish, the electoral college. In 1969, in the wake of an election where a third party candidate almost sent the election to the House of Representatives, an amendment to do away with the electoral college passed the House of Representatives with 83% of the vote, 338-70. Richard Nixon favored the amendment, and so did three-quarters of state legislatures, Republican Senator Howard Baker denounced the electoral college with "Any system which favors one citizen over another or one state over another is ... inconsistent with the most fundamental concept of a democratic society." Predictably, the amendment failed in the Senate (though it did have a majority of Senate votes); however, it was not small states who blocked the reform but rather Southern states, who saw the electoral college as part of states' rights.

Related Topics:
Howard Baker - States' rights

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regardless of how opponents of the system feel, it is unlikely that the system will soon be changed. Changing the system requires amending the Constitution, and amending the Constitution requires ratification of three-fourths of the States. It is commonly thought that smaller states would be unlikely to ratify such an amendment, as their votes would count for less under direct popular vote than under the current electoral college system.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some believe abolishing the electoral college would strengthen third parties. However, this is unlikely. Under an electoral college, third parties may thrive in noncompetitive states because voters do not have to worry that voting for a third party would cause the "least bad" major party candidate to lose. Under a strictly democratic system, every vote in every state might be the decisive one. A greater impediment to third parties is the plurality winner-take-all system.

Related Topics:
Noncompetitive states - Least bad - Major party - Winner-take-all

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Debate over the merit of the Electoral College came to a head after the 2000 Presidential election, with some politicians, such as Senator Hillary Clinton, calling for a Constitutional amendment abolishing the system. Clinton conceded that the chances of enacting such a change were slim, and the idea has not been vigorously pursued since the 2000 election.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~