ResearcherT

E

H QCElectoral CollegeShould it be abolished? Should it be changed?

The 2000 presidential race produced one of the

closest popular-vote margins in U.S. history

and left neither Republican George W. Bush

nor Democrat Al Gore with an Electoral

College majority on the day after the election. With

Florida’s 25 electoral votes holding the key to victory,

Gore is pressing for a recount to try to overcome Bush’s

narrow margin in the state while also touting his 300,000-

vote lead over Bush nationwide. The race and the recount

have focused new attention on the Electoral College.

Critics say the 212-year-old system for choosing the

president is anachronistic and anti-democratic, but

supporters say it forces candidates to build national

coalitions and discourages third-party candidates. Despite

calls for abolishing or reforming the system, observers say

changes are unlikely.

PUBLISHED BY CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.

◆ WINNER, 1999 SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL

JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE

SPECIAL

32-PAGE

ISSUE!

FREE W

EB T

RIAL

See

back

cov

er

Dec. 8, 2000 • Volume 10, No. 42 • Pages 977-1008

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ........................... 979

BACKGROUND ..................... 988

CHRONOLOGY ..................... 989

CURRENT SITUATION ........... 995

OUTLOOK...........................1000

AT ISSUE ..............................1001

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................1003

THE NEXT STEP ..................1004

THIS ISSUE

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

978 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

979 • Should the ElectoralCollege be retained?• Should the president beelected by direct election?• Should the ElectoralCollege be modified?

BACKGROUND

988 An ‘Excellent’ SystemThe Framers struggled todevise the method ofelecting the president.

990 Electoral ContentionThe Electoral Collegesystem was sorely tested inthe 19th century.

991 A Workable System?Critics of the ElectoralCollege continued to offerproposals for changeduring the 20th century.

992 Electoral CliffhangerPolitical observers predictedthe race between Al Goreand George W. Bush wouldbe one of the closest ever.

CURRENT SITUATION

995 Recounts and ContestsFlorida’s canvassing boardfinally certified a 537-votevictory for Bush.

998 Impasse in CongressSeveral joint resolutions toabolish the Electoral Collegewere introduced.

OUTLOOK

1000 Electoral DeadlockProspects for abolishingthe college are slim.

SIDEBARS ANDGRAPHICS

980 Allocating the States’Electoral VotesEach state gets votes equal toits members of Congress.

982 Could a ‘Faithless Elector’Change the Election?Renegade electors occasionallyvote for another candidate.

984 Alternatives for Selectingthe PresidentThree alternatives have beenoffered.

987 Pressure Grows forElection ReformThere is broad consensus thatoverhaul is needed.

989 ChronologyKey events since 1787.

990 Why the Framers Createdthe Electoral CollegeAn excerpt from Hamilton’sThe Federalist No. 68.

993 Americans Have Elected 17‘Minority’ PresidentsAll 17 had a minority of thepopular vote.

994 Public Would AbolishElectoral CollegeDirect election is favored.

997 Countdown in FloridaKey events since Nov. 7.

1001 At IssueShould the Electoral Collegebe abolished?

FOR MOREINFORMATION

1003 BibliographySelected sources used.

1004 The Next StepAdditional articles fromcurrent periodicals.

Cover: Palm Beach County Election Supervisor Theresa LePore and Republican lawyer KevinMurphy examine a presidential ballot during hand tabulation of votes on Nov. 18. (AP PoolPhoto/Greg Lovett)

MANAGING EDITORThomas J. Colin

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITORKathy Koch

STAFF WRITERSMary H. Cooper

Kenneth JostDavid Masci

PRODUCTION EDITOROlu B. Davis

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTScott D. Kuzner

CQ PRESSA Division of

Congressional Quarterly Inc.

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGERJohn A. Jenkins

DIRECTOR, LIBRARY PUBLISHINGKathryn Suarez

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.

CHAIRMANAndrew Barnes

VICE CHAIRMANAndrew P. Corty

PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHERRobert W. Merry

Copyright 2000 Congressional Quarterly Inc. (CQ).

CQ reserves all copyright and other rights herein,

unless previously specified in writing. No part of

this publication may be reproduced electronically

or otherwise, without prior written permission.

Unauthorized reproduction or transmission of CQ

copyrighted material is a violation of federal law

carrying civil fines of up to $100,000.

The CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on

acid-free paper. Published weekly, except Jan. 7,

June 30, July 7, July 21, Aug. 11, Aug. 18, Dec. 1

and Dec. 29, by Congressional Quarterly Inc.

Annual subscription rate for libraries, businesses

and government is $444. Single issues are available

for $10 (subscribers) or $20 (non-subscribers).

Quantity discounts apply to orders over 10. Addi-

tional rates furnished upon request. Periodicals

postage paid at Washington, D.C., and additional

mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address

changes to The CQ Researcher, 1414 22nd St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.

Dec. 8, 2000Volume 10, No. 42

CQ ResearcherT

HE

Dec. 8, 2000 979CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

BY KENNETH JOST ANDGREGORY L. GIROUX

THE ISSUES

Electoral College

W hen all the count-ing and recount-ing in Florida is

over, Dawn Guzzetta mayturn out to be the only voterfrom Palm Beach Countythat really counts.

Guzzet ta is one ofFlorida’s 25 Republican“electors.” Barring a turn-around victory for Demo-crats Al Gore and Joseph I.Lieberman, Guzzetta andthe other Republican elec-tors will meet in Tallahas-see later this month to castthe state’s electoral votes for GeorgeW. Bush and Richard B. Cheney,pushing them over the needed 270-vote mark and locking up the elec-tion.

A lobbyist for the county’s Repub-lican sheriff and a longtime cam-paigner for the Bush family, Guzzettawas thrilled to be chosen as a GOPelector this summer — the only onefrom Palm Beach County.

“Never did I think it would be-come so important — not only to beone of 25 in Florida but to be fromPalm Beach County, where it seemslike it’s all going to be decided,” shesays. “That’s an extra bit of fun, asyou can imagine.”

Florida’s 25 electoral votesemerged as the critical prize in the2000 presidential race in the earlymorning hours of Nov. 8, as thepopular-vote totals from the other 49states and the District of Columbialeft neither Bush nor Gore with amajority of the nation’s 538 electoralvotes. But the popular vote in Floridawas close — so close that four weekslater both Bush and Gore are claim-ing victory.

The tortuously close vote in thecontest to elect the nation’s 43rd

president is giving Americans a crashcourse in the little-understood me-chanics of the 212-year-old ElectoralCollege voting system. Americansaccustomed to thinking that theywere directly voting for president andvice president now know that theyare really voting for a number ofelectors from their state equal to thesize of the state’s congressional del-egation: two senators plus the num-ber of representatives, which is de-termined by the state’s population.

In addition, Americans are learningthat the presidential election is not overthe morning after Election Day but con-tinues through myriad other steps, in-cluding formal certification of the states’popular votes; meetings of the states’electors in their respective state capitalsin mid-December; and the formal count-ing of electoral votes by a joint sessionof Congress in early January, two weeksbefore inauguration on Jan. 20.

The Electoral College has beencontroversial throughout U.S. history.More than 700 proposals to changeit have been introduced in Congressover the past 200 years. Critics —many who favor direct election —call the college anachronistic and anti-democratic.

“The Electoral College isan antiquated institution thathas outlived its purpose,” saysSen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.,who is sponsoring a constitu-tional amendment for directelection of the president.

Supporters, however, viewthe Electoral College as abulwark of federalism and thetwo-party system. In anyevent, the supporters say, itworks — most of the timewithout a hitch.

For her part, Guzzetta seesno reason to change. “Itmakes sense to me from thestandpoint that it’s the Consti-tution, it’s history,” she says.

“And I’m part of it, so I’m a believer.”Along with the rest of the country,

Guzzetta has closely followed Gore’sefforts to reverse Bush’s apparentvictory — first by asking for manualrecounts of the votes in Palm Beachand three other Florida counties andthen by filing an election challengein state court in Tallahassee on Nov.27. The suit came the morning afterFlorida Secretary of State KatherineHarris certified Bush as the popular-vote winner in the state by a razor-thin margin of 537 votes.

Whether Bush or Gore wins, theelection will mark the third consecu-tive time and the 17th instance inhistory that a president takes officewith less than a majority of the popu-lar vote. (Bill Clinton won 43 percentof the vote in 1992 and 49 percentin 1996.) And if Bush wins, he willbecome the fourth president — andthe first since 1888 — to win theWhite House despite trailing in thepopular vote. (See chart, p. 993.)

Critics of the Electoral College saythe potential mismatch between thepopular vote and electoral vote un-derscores the Electoral College’s fun-damental flaw. “Most Americans don’tthink the Electoral College is as fair

Supporters of Democrat Al Gore and his running mateJoseph Lieberman protest the use of the “butterfly ballot” inFlorida’s Palm Beach County on Nov. 9, following the Nov.

7 presidential election.

AP P

hoto

/Gar

y I. R

oth

stei

n

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

980 CQ Researcher

as a direct election would be,” saysRobert Richie, director of the Centerfor Voting and Democracy, a TakomaPark, Md., group headed by formerthird-party presidential candidateJohn B. Anderson.

“Every other office in the UnitedStates is elected on the basis of theperson who gets the most votes,”Neal R. Peirce, co-author of The Elec-toral College Primer 2000, remarkedshortly after Election Day. “But theElectoral College, for reasons no onecan ever explain to you logically,values some voters over other voters.The result of this election, if it holds,would mean that a quarter-million-vote surplus for Mr. Gore nationallyis worth less than a thousand or twothousand in Florida. Why?” 1

Opinion polls consistently findmajority support for direct popularvote. In a Gallup Poll conducted theweekend after the election, 61 per-cent of those surveyed favored directelection compared with 35 percentfor keeping the current system. (Seepoll, p. 994.)

Supporters of the Electoral College,however, maintain that the systemforces a winning presidential candidateto build a national coalition from manystates. “Elections, especially presiden-tial elections, are designed not just tovoice opinions,” says Judith Best, a pro-fessor at the State University of NewYork in Cortland and author of severalbooks and articles defending the Elec-toral College. “The goal is a presidentwho can govern.”

The longevity of the system stemsin part from the belief among somelawmakers that it gives smaller statesprotection against domination by themore populous states. At the sametime, though, some large-state law-makers say their states gain addedpolitical leverage because of thewinner-take-all rule, which awardsall of a state’s electors to the popular-vote winner, no matter how narrowthe margin. Maine and Nebraska arethe only states to use a differentsystem — the so-called district plan,which awards one electoral vote tothe candidate who carries each con-gressional district and two to thestatewide winner.

Some academic experts discountarguments that the system causes

Allocating the States’ Electoral Votes

Source: Congress A to Z, 1999

Each state is allotted electoral votes equal to the number of members it has in Congress: two senators for each state plus the number of members of the House of Representatives, which is determined by the state’s population. The District of Columbia — which has no voting representative in Congress — is allotted three electoral votes under the 23rd Amendment. Nationwide, there are 538 electoral votes.

New York

Ohio

Nebraska

Texas

Virginia

Minn.

Iowa

Missouri

California

Nevada

Oregon

Colorado

Washington

Idaho

Montana

Utah

ArizonaNew

Mexico

Wyoming

North Dakota

South Dakota

Alaska

Oklahoma

Ark.

La.

Illinois

Miss.

Tenn.

Ga.

Hawaii

Connecticut

Mass.

R.I.

MaineVermont

W. Va. New Jersey

Delaware

Maryland

District of Columbia

Ala.

Fla.

Wis.

Mich.Ind. Pa.

N.C.S.C.

N.H.

Electoral Votes Allotted to Each State

Kansas

3

47

54

4

3

5 8

8 5

32

4

3

8

6

5

11

67

3

310

11

9 13

Kentucky

8

58

211222

7

9

25

14

13

3

10

3

15

23 84

1233

4

11

18

11

3

4

Dec. 8, 2000 981CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

candidates to give disproportionateattention either to small or largestates. But one prominent critic saysthe system actually encourages can-didates to favor both.

“The Electoral College is sick inthe sense that it seems to overrepre-sent the smaller states, the largerstates and in the last election thecompetitive states, at least in terms ofthe resources that were devoted tothem,” says Stephen Wayne, a pro-fessor of Americangovernment atGeorgetown Univer-sity in Washington.

But a leading de-fender of the ElectoralCollege says it hasserved the countrywell, just as the Fram-ers of the Constitutionintended when theydesigned it in 1787.“They got it right thefirst time,” says RobertHardaway, a law pro-fessor at the Universityof Denver and authorof The Electoral Col-lege and the Constitu-tion. “If we’re going toabolish the ElectoralCollege, we will haveto abolish the U.S.Senate and basicallystart this Constitutionfrom scratch. And Idon’t think peopleunderstand at this point the variousramifications of that.”

Abolishing the Electoral College infavor of direct popular election wouldrequire amending the Constitution —a daunting task that would requireapproval by two-thirds majorities inboth houses of Congress and ratifica-tion by three-fourths of the statelegislatures. Some changes could beenacted by state or federal law, how-ever — such as allocating electoralvotes by congressional district or

according to the proportion of thepopular vote each candidate receivesin the state. Smaller states are viewedas likely to block any constitutionalamendment, while public support forlesser changes is difficult to mobilize.

Still, the 2000 race has put theissue on the national agenda for thefirst time in two decades. As thedebate — and vote counting — con-tinue, here are some of the majorquestions being considered:

Should the Electoral College beretained?

Perhaps the most popular defenseof the Electoral College is that it hasserved the country well. Why, Elec-toral College supporters ask, shouldwe change the system — and theU.S. Constitution — when it hasusually produced a clear winner?

In every election since 1824, “theElectoral College has produced awinner, and the prediction of manyobservers of the earliest days that

most presidential elections would bedecided in the House of Representa-t ives has not come to pass,”Hardaway writes. 2

Other scholars have noted that theElectoral College produces decisivemajorities. “By amplifying, or exag-gerating, the margin of victory in thepopular vote, it produces decisiveresults, or, at least, results that ap-pear to be decisive,” Walter Berns, aresident scholar at the American

Enterprise Institute(AEI), has noted. “Byamplifying the popu-lar [vote] margin ofvictory, the ElectoralCollege also gives us aclear and immediatelyknown winner with alegitimate claim for theoffice.” 3

Others say that theElectoral College re-quires presidential can-didates to garner broadcoalitions. “It’s designedto produce political ma-jorities, not simply arith-metic ones,” Best says.

Indeed, ElectoralCollege backers notedthat the waning daysof the current presi-dential contest broughtvisits from presidentialand vice-presidentialcandidates to states asdiverse as Oregon,

New Mexico, Wisconsin, Maine andNew Hampshire — none of themelectoral powerhouses.

But Akhil Amar, a Yale Universitylaw professor and Electoral Collegeopponent, responds that anyone whoachieves 51 percent of the popularvote requires a broad cross-section ofsupport.

Electoral College opponents saythe present system, far from requir-ing a broad electoral mandate, actu-ally limits the playing field of presi-

Republicans for George W. Bush and Richard Cheney answer Gore-Lieberman supporters at a rally at the Palm Beach County

elections office on Nov. 9.

AP P

hoto

/Gar

y I. R

oth

stei

n

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

982 CQ Researcher

Could a ‘Faithless Elector’ . . .

A s all Americans well know, the 2000 presidentialelection has been unable (as this article goes topress) to elect a president. Still, it has been able to

clear up several misconceptions about selecting the nation’schief executive.

For one thing, voters now better understand that theydon’t vote directly for presidential candidates but choose

“electors” who have pledged to back presidentialcandidates.

Voters also know now that the popular-vote winner ina state doesn’t win the state’s electoral votes. Rather, thecandidate wins the state’s slate of electors, who cast theirvotes on the first Monday after the third Wednesday inDecember — Dec. 18 this year.

The Framers of the Constitution intendedelectors to be worldly, deeply learnedindividuals who could exercise independentjudgment. In recent years, though, electorshave more often than not been partystalwarts who almost invariably backed theparty nominee.

Occasionally, however, renegade electors— known as “faithless electors” — vote foranother candidate. Of the more than 21,000electoral votes cast in American history,fewer than a dozen were cast againstinstructions. Those instances, however rare,have raised questions as to whether electorsare rubber stamps for their pledgedcandidate or are free agents who are freeunder the Constitution to vote as they wish.

Faithless electors have been around sinceat least 1796, when a Pennsylvania votercriticized a Federalist elector who voted forThomas Jefferson instead of John Adams, theFederalist candidate: “Do I chuse Samuel Milesto determine for me whether John Adams orThomas Jefferson shall be president? No, Ichuse him to act, not to think.” 1

On Jan. 6, 1969, when Congress countedthe electoral votes from the 1968 electionwon by Republican Richard M. Nixon, Sen.Edmund S. Muskie, D-Maine, and Rep.

Ties That BindTwenty-nine states and the District of Columbia require presidential electors to vote for the candidate who carried the state. Michigan, North Carolina and Utah provide that a “faithless elector” — an elector who votes for some other candidate — is not counted and the remaining electors fill the vacancy. New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington provide criminal penalties or fines for violations. But no “faithless elector” has ever been punished, and experts doubt whether it would be constitutionally permissible to do so.

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures, National Archives and Records Administration

States That Bind Electorsto the Popular-Vote Winner

AlabamaAlaska

CaliforniaColorado

ConnecticutDelaware

District of ColumbiaFloridaHawaiiMaine

MarylandMassachusetts

MichiganMississippi

MontanaNebraskaNevada

New MexicoNorth Carolina

Ohio

OklahomaOregon

South CarolinaTennessee

UtahVermontVirginia

WashingtonWisconsinWyoming

dential campaign activity to politi-cally competitive “swing” states, suchas Michigan and Pennsylvania. Thetwo vote-rich states drew numerouscampaign visits by the Bush and Gorecampaigns because they weredeemed too close to call for most ofthe campaign.

On the other hand, Texas and NewYork are more populous and havemore electoral votes, but drew fewercandidate visits because they are notcompetitive politically — Texas isBush’s home state and leans Repub-

lican, New York is heavily Demo-cratic.

“Instead of having a national cam-paign, you have a targeted campaignin the most competitive states, fromPennsylvania across the Midwest andFlorida,” says Georgetown’s Wayne.“So, in effect, the Electoral Collegewas denying participation in the elec-tion to much of the country.”

Peirce and his co-author ,Lawrence D. Longley of LawrenceUniversity, concur: “Candidates haveno incentive, under the Electoral

College, to waste campaign time orresources on a state or region al-ready likely to go for — or against— them.” 4

Other scholars say that a popularvote-electoral vote discrepancy couldraise questions about the ability of apresident to govern. In the immedi-ate aftermath of the 2000 election,some political analysts said that thecloseness of the race would giveneither Bush nor Gore an electoral“mandate,” and that either man wouldfind it difficult to govern.

Dec. 8, 2000 983CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

. . . Change the Election Outcome?James O’Hara, D-Mich., challenged — to no avail — avote cast for independent candidate George C. Wallace byNorth Carolina ophthalmologist Lloyd Bailey, a Republicanelector whose state Nixon carried. Bailey, a member ofthe ultraconservative John Birch Society, said that he hadplanned to vote for Nixon but didn’t because he opposedsome of Nixon’s presidential appointments. 2

Faithless electors could conceivably have changed theoutcome of the 1976 race between Republican incumbentGerald R. Ford and Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter.The race was so close — Carter won the electoral tally by297-240 and the popular tally by 50-48 percent — that ashift of 9,246 votes in Ohio and Hawaii would have electedFord president.

Bob Dole, who was Ford’s vice-presidential runningmate, candidly admitted the following year that Ford’scampaign was preparing to sound out potential faithlesselectors if Ford had carried Ohio and brought the GOPticket to within a few electoral votes of the 270 needed.

“We were shopping — not shopping, excuse me — lookingaround for electors,” Dole told the Senate Judiciary Committee.“[I]t just seems to me that the temptation is there for [electors]in a very tight race to really negotiate quite a bunch.” 3

There was one faithless elector in 1976 — Mike Padden,a Republican elector from Washington state, who votedfor Ronald Reagan instead of Ford because he felt Fordwas not sufficiently opposed to abortion. The most recentfaithless elector appeared in 1988, when West VirginiaDemocrat Margaret Leach voted for Democratic vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen for president insteadof presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis. 4

As the 2000 presidential election inched toward aconclusion, neither presidential candidate had a majorityof electoral votes, increasing the possibility that faithlesselectors could play a role. A victory by George W. Bushin Florida would give the Republican 271 electoral votes

to Democrat Al Gore’s 267 electoral votes — just one votemore than the 270 needed to win.

Perhaps the most controversial move to attract renegadeelectors was initiated by Democratic strategist Bob Beckel,who sought to inform some GOP electors that they couldvote for any candidate they wanted. But Gore said that hewould not accept any renegades’ votes.

Robert Lipkin, a law professor at Widener University inChester, Pa., says that any Republican electors who votefor popular-vote winner Gore, which he said was unlikely,would be “both in line with the intent of the Framers andalso out of line with it.”

“They will be on the one hand voting out of a sense ofconscience, which is what the Founding Fathers wantedthem to do. But not to vote for the man who won thepopular vote — that’s what they didn’t want them to do,”Lipkin says.

Today, 29 states and the District of Columbia have lawsbinding electors to the popular-vote winners. But no faithlesselector has ever been sanctioned, and many scholars say thatthose laws would not pass constitutional muster.

“Once electors are selected,” says Glenn Reynolds, a lawprofessor at the University of Tennessee, “states don’t havethe power to tell them how to act.”

Indeed, Reynolds calls the term faithless elector amisnomer, arguing that “an elector who changes his orher mind is no more faithless than a member of Congresswho campaigns on a platform of tax cuts and winds upvoting for a tax increase.”

1 Quoted in Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Peirce, The ElectoralCollege Primer 2000 (1999), p. 24.2 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Jan. 31, 1969, p. 184.3 Longley and Peirce, op. cit., p. 78.4 Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections, 3rd ed. (2000), p.351.

Continued on p. 985

But AEI’s Berns, testifying before theHouse Judiciary Constitution Subcom-mittee in 1997, noted that in 1888, thelast time a popular-vote winner lost thepresidency, “there was hardly a rippleof popular discontent, no complaintsfrom the losing candidate, Grover Cleve-land, that he had been cheated, no spateof editorials claiming that BenjaminHarrison was an illegitimate president.”

Still, Berns added, the public prob-ably would react differently today toa popular vote-electoral vote discrep-ancy because the “moral authority”

of the Electoral College has beenundermined by repeated and unsuc-cessful attempts in Congress to re-place the college by direct election.

Other Electoral College advocatesliken the Electoral College to theWorld Series, in which the first teamto win four games in a seven-gameseries wins, regardless of the runmargins in each game. In the 1997Series, for example, the Florida Mar-lins defeated the Cleveland Indians,four games to three, despite scoringfewer runs overall in the seven games.

Amar of Yale and Richie of theCenter for Voting and Democracy saythat, using the logic of ElectoralCollege supporters, California andother big states should elect gover-nors by electoral vote rather than bypopular vote.

“If the Electoral College is so good,why don’t we pick governors thisway?” Amar asks.

Electoral College defenders alsosay that opponents have reached noconsensus on what an alternative

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

984 CQ Researcher

Four Methods for Selecting the President, 1960-1996

Source: Stephen J. Wayne, The Road to the White House, 2000, June 2000

Three major proposals have been made to revise the existing Electoral College system. The proportional plan would allocate a state’s electoral votes on the basis of the proportion of the vote each candidate received. The district plan would award one electoral vote to the candidate who carried each congressional district and two votes to the candidate who carried the state as a whole. Under direct election, the candidate with the largest number of popular votes nationwide would be president.The district plan would have elected Richard M. Nixon in 1960 over John F. Kennedy, while the 1976 race between Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter would have ended in an Electoral College tie. The proportional plan also would have thrown the 1960, 1968, 1992 and 1996 elections into the House of Representatives.

Current Electoral System vs. Three Proposals

Electoral Proportional District DirectYear Candidates College plan plan election

1960 Nixon 219 266.1 278 49.5Kennedy 303 265.6 245 49.8Byrd 15 5.3 14 0.7

1964 Goldwater 52 213.6 72 38.5Johnson 486 320.0 466 61.0Others 0 3.9 0 0.5

1968 Nixon 301 231.5 289 43.2Humphrey 191 225.4 192 42.7Wallace 46 78.8 57 13.5Others 0 2.3 0 0.6

1972 Nixon 520 330.3 474 60.7McGovern 17 197.5 64 37.5Others 1 10.2 0 1.9

1976 Ford 240 258.0 269 48.0Carter 297 269.7 269 50.1Others 1 10.2 0 1.9

1980 Reagan 489 272.9 396 50.7Carter 49 220.9 142 41.0Anderson 0 35.3 0 6.6Others 0 8.9 0 1.7

1984 Reagan 525 317.6 468 58.8Mondale 13 216.6 70 40.6Others 0 3.8 0 0.6

1988 Bush 426 287.8 379 53.4Dukakis 111 244.7 159 45.6Others 1 5.5 0 1.0

1992 Bush 168 203.3 214 37.5Clinton 370 231.6 324 43.0Perot 0 101.8 0 18.9Others 0 1.3 0 0.6

1996 Clinton 379 262.0 345 49.2Dole 159 219.9 193 40.7Perot 0 48.8 0 8.4Others 0 7.3 0 1.7

Dec. 8, 2000 985CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

Continued from p. 983

voting system would look like.Michael Glennon, a law professor atthe University of California-Davis,noted in his 1992 book about theElectoral College, “Just as WinstonChurchill concluded about democ-racy, the Electoral College system isprobably the worst possible methodof choosing a president — except forall the others.” 5

As the University of Denver’sHardaway puts it, “the re-formers have failed toachieve the one thing thatthe Constitutional Framersdid achieve: a consen-sus.” 6

Should the presidentbe elected by directelection?

The most popular alter-native to the ElectoralCollege is to eliminate itentirely and simply let thepopular-vote winner be-come president.

Proponents say thatdirect election preservesthe principle of one per-son, one vote, while theElectoral College effec-tively disenfranchises mil-lions of voters who votefor the losing presidentialcandidates in their respec-tive states. For example, acandidate who loses astate with 500,000 votesdoes no better in the Elec-toral College arithmeticthan another candidatewho loses the same statewith 400,000 votes. Butunder direct election, all the candi-dates’ votes would count toward theirfinal popular-vote totals.

In this year’s election, the 4.5million Californians who voted forBush contributed to his overall popu-lar-vote total. But their votes were

ultimately no help to Bush becauseGore won more votes in Californiaand thereby received all of the state’selectoral votes.

Moreover, proponents say directelection would eliminate the advantagesthe most populous and least populousstates enjoy under the Electoral College.Longley and Peirce have noted that themost populous states benefit under thepresent system because of the winner-take-all format. The least populous

states also benefit, they say, from hav-ing two at-large electoral votes — justas many as the other states. That leavesmedium-sized states as the most disad-vantaged under the present system.

Direct election would eliminatethose biases by guaranteeing that one

person’s vote in one state carries asmuch weight as another person’s votein any other state.

But opponents fear that directelection would replicate on a na-tional level the current vote-countingcontroversy in Florida. “And if we’reconcerned about this [controversy] inFlorida now, and how time-consum-ing that is, can you imagine under apopular-election scheme how manymonths it would take to do a revote

in every single county anddistrict in the entire UnitedStates?” Hardaway asks.

Even direct-election propo-nents recognize that danger.Georgetown University ’sWayne contends that directelection today would haveproduced what he calls“Florida times 50.” Direct elec-tion is “not feasible today,” hesays, because of the problemslike those with punch cardsand ballot machines in Florida.Wayne supports wedding di-rect election with a nationalballot (one that appears thesame in every voting jurisdic-tion) and voting by computer.

Sen. Durbin acknowl-edges that a direct-electionsystem would not necessar-ily make elections “cleaneror quicker.” But he said thatselecting a president by avote of the American people“is a much more convincingstatement” than by a vote ofthe Electoral College, whichDurbin calls a “subterfuge.”

Many direct-election pro-posals require a runoff elec-tion between the top two

vote-getters if the leading candidatedoes not reach a certain threshold ofthe popular vote. The direct-electionbill sponsored by Durbin would re-quire the winning candidate to cap-ture at least 40 percent of the popu-lar vote.

Gov. George W. Bush tells the nation in a televised speech onNov. 26 that he is “preparing to serve” as America’s nextpresident after Florida’s secretary of state certified him

as the winner of its crucial 25 electoral votes.

Reu

ters

/Ric

k W

ilkin

g

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

986 CQ Researcher

In Wayne’s view, a direct electionwould “probably invigorate” the partysystem. Richie of the Center forVoting and Democracy says it wouldprompt parties to focus on get-out-the-vote efforts everywhere, not justin select states that dominate the Elec-toral College calculus.

“Direct election gives each statean incentive to turn its voters out,”Yale’s Amar adds.

But opponents worry that direct elec-tion would lead to a proliferation ofminor parties. They say that without theElectoral College,third parties wouldhave a greater incen-tive to participate inthe general election— and greater appealto disaffected voters.

“Very soon,”Hardaway writes,“the lure of getting apiece of the nationalpopular tally wouldbe too great for amultitude of minorand extreme partiesto resist the incen-tive to compromise,to give and take, tocome to terms withmajor parties.” 7

Another promi-nent argument infavor of direct election is that it elimi-nates the “faithless elector” problem— the possibility, however rare, thatsome renegade electors might votefor candidates to whom they did notoriginally pledge. In a close race,Electoral College opponents fear, theelection could be decided not onElection Day but between then andmid-December, when electors casttheir votes in their respective statecapitals. Because the electors can votefor whomever they wish, some maybe swayed by politicized deals orideological views to abandon thecandidate they pledged to vote for.

But Electoral College defenders notethat such defections have been veryrare and never jeopardized the out-come. (See sidebar, p. 982.)

Advocates of abolishing the col-lege say that it is undemocratic toelect a president who receives fewerpopular votes than another candi-date who wins more electoral votes.

But, Hardaway argues that in GreatBritain and other parliamentary de-mocracies, “it is not uncommon forthe country’s leader to be chosen byparty members receiving a minority

of popular votes in the national elec-tion.” 8

Direct-election proponents alsoemphasize polls showing public sup-port for abolishing the ElectoralCollege. But critics of direct electionquestion the validity of surveys thatask “loaded” questions such as, “Doyou think the presidential candidatewho gets the most popular votesshould be elected?” Moreover, theysay, most Americans likely are noteven aware of the Electoral Collegeor its complexity, or that the Found-ing Fathers envisioned a representa-tive democracy in which decisions

are made by public officials, not thegeneral public.

Should the Electoral College beretained but modified?

A constitutional amendment abol-ishing the Electoral College is viewedas highly unlikely to win enactment,but many Electoral College advocatesand detractors alike agree on thedesirability of some lesser changes.

Proposed statutory changes in-clude altering the way electoral votesare allocated. Forty-eight states and

the District of Colum-bia adhere to the “win-ner-take-all” format,which gives the win-ner of a state’s popularvote all of the electoralvotes, regardless of thecloseness of the vote.

Jennie Drage, ananalyst with the Na-tional Conference ofState Legislatures, saysit is “quite likely” thatstate legislatures willconsider changingtheir winner-take-allallocation plans to thedistrict system used byMaine and Nebraska.Supporters of the dis-trict plan say it moreclosely approximates

each candidate’s degree of support ina state.

Shortly after the Nov. 7 election,legislators in several states announcedplans to introduce bills to changetheir state’s electoral vote allocationmethod from winner-take-all to dis-trict. State Rep. Bill Mitchell, R-Ill.,whose state went for Gore but hasseveral solidly Republican congres-sional districts, introduced a districtplan bill nine days after the election.

Another proposal is to award elec-toral votes in proportion to candi-dates’ share of the statewide popular

Continued on p. 988

Vice President Al Gore addresses the nation on television on Nov. 27,saying he will contest the decision by Florida’s secretary of state to certify

Florida’s electoral votes for Gov. Bush.

New

smak

ers

Dec. 8, 2000 987CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

Pressure Grows for Election Reform

A mericans may not agree about who won thepresidential election or whether the Electoral Collegeshould be abolished. But the close-up look at

counting the votes in Florida has created a broad consensusthat election procedures need an overhaul.

“This is a tremendous opportunity to look at this processand try to find some ways to administer elections moreaccurately and more efficiently,” says Gary McIntosh,director of elections in Washington state and president ofthe National Association of State Election Directors.

“You can’t be a first-world power using Third Worldtechnology on something as important as elections,” says WilliamLash, a law professor atGeorge Mason University inFairfax, Va.

Following the election,leading senators in bothparties introduced bills tostudy how to improveelection procedures andhelp state and local govern-ments pay for changes.

“We ’re the mostsuccessful democracy in thehistory of the world, andyet we can’t figure out howto make voting a positiveexperience for everyone,”says Sen. Charles E.Schumer, D-N.Y. His billcalls for a $10 million studyof voting procedures by theFederal Election Commission and $250 million in matchingfederal grants to carry out the FEC’s recommendations.

“We can do much, much better on how we vote onfederal elections,” says Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. His billcalls for a bipartisan, five-member commission appointedby congressional leaders and the president to study theissues and recommend changes.

The messy count in Florida has given Americans a crashcourse in voting procedures and technology — from theconfusing “butterfly ballot” used in Palm Beach County tothe obsolescent punch-card systems used in most of thestate and much of the nation. Election law experts — aswell as rank-and-file voters — have urged changes rangingfrom a uniform national ballot to voting on the Internet.

Among all the proposals, one that seems to commandthe widest agreement is phasing out punch cards. Thetechnology — introduced in the 1960s — performsunevenly, experts say. “There are ballots that a humanwould treat as marked, but the machine doesn’t treat asmarked,” says Richard Briffault, an expert on election law

at Columbia University in New York City.In Florida, counties using punch-card systems reported

that about 4 percent of the 6 million ballots cast (240,000ballots) were voided — almost triple the 1.4 percent rate incounties using optical-scanning systems. The nationallytelevised spectacle of election workers looking forincompletely detached “chads” on punch cards may spell thedoom of the technology.

“I don’t think you’re going to hear the word chad inthe federal lexicon after this election is over,” Lash says.

Other proposals are more controversial. A uniform nationalballot would collide with the tradition of state administration

of elections. And Internetvoting — either at a pollingplace or from a remote lo-cation such as voters’ homes— poses a host of vexingprivacy and security issues. Onthe other hand, computertouch-screen voting at pollingplaces is widely applauded asconvenient and reliable.

Election officials have beenaware of problems in votingand counting procedures foryears, says McIntosh. “Many ofthe systems that we use todayare archaic,” he says. “They’reused because they’re easy toprogram and easy to set up.There ’s not much of anincentive for change.”

With little public attention except at election time, thereis also little pressure to devote more resources to votingprocedures. “Election administration is given the back ofthe hand,” Briffault says.

The Florida recount also has brought calls to make electionoffices nonpartisan. In most states — including Florida —election offices typically are under the secretary of state, aposition usually filled in partisan elections. Florida Secretaryof State Katherine Harris, a Republican, made pivotal decisionsfavorable to Texas Gov. George W. Bush after having servedas a co-chair for Bush’s state campaign.

Briffault says efforts to change procedures should bebipartisan and non-controversial. “No party is reallyadvantaging from this situation,” he says.

McIntosh worries that the public may lose interest inthe issue after the election is over, but Lash thinks pressurefor change will prove to be more long-lasting. “The publicis going to demand that Congress give this a hard lookand make sure that funding is available to poorer statesand counties that can’t afford to do it,” Lash says.

Some voters in Palm Beach County complained they voted forReform Party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore

because the “butterfly ballot” was confusing.

AP P

hoto

/Gar

y I. R

oth

stei

n

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

988 CQ Researcher

Continued on p. 990

vote, though that has received lessattention than the district plan.

“The problem is not so much theElectoral College as the winner-take-all method of voting,” Wayne says.“If you can change to proportionalvoting or district voting, that wouldbe better.”

But Democrats probably wouldoppose the district plan because itwould appear to favor Republicansin close elections. The most heavilyDemocratic and minority districts inthe country give Democratic presi-dential candidates more than 85percent of the vote, whereas the mostheavily Republican districts give GOPcandidates much smaller winningpercentages.

Either the district or the propor-tional-vote plan would have changedthe results in some recent presiden-tial elections. The district plan, forexample, would have given the 1960election to Richard M. Nixon overJohn F. Kennedy and would haveresulted in a 269-269 electoral votetie in 1976 between Jimmy Carter andGerald R. Ford. The proportional voteplan would have thrown four recentelections into the House of Repre-sentatives: the 1960 contest; the three-way race in 1968 between Nixon,Hubert H. Humphrey and GeorgeWallace; and Clinton’s races againstGeorge Bush in 1992 and Bob Dolein 1996. (See chart, p. 984.)

When the 2000 presidential electionresults are classified by congressionaldistrict, political observers expect thatthey will show Bush would have wonunder the district plan.

Opponents of the district planworry that allotting electoral votes bycongressional district would exacer-bate political gerrymandering —when state legislators redraw con-gressional districts to maximize theirpolitical advantage.

“Most district lines are not shapedcoherently, they are shaped politi-

cally,” says Richie of the Center forVoting and Democracy, adding thatcandidates “shouldn’t be punishedfor having more support in someareas than others.”

Richie supports a method of vot-ing called “instant runoff voting,”which would let voters rank theirpreference of candidates. If no can-didate received a majority of votes,the votes of any third-party candi-dates would be redistributed betweenthe top two candidates. Richie saidthat instant runoff voting is moreefficient because it simulates a runoffon Election Day and saves taxpayersthe cost of holding another electionon a different date.

Another proposed change wouldeliminate the actual position of “elec-tor” and award electoral votes auto-matically on the basis of a state’s vote— thus eliminating the “faithless elec-tor” problem. “We don’t need themany more,” Professor Best says. Un-like other specific changes, however,that one would require a constitu-tional amendment, she says.

BACKGROUNDAn ‘Excellent’ System

T he Framers of the Constitutionstruggled to devise the method of

electing the president of the newgovernment they were creating in thesummer of 1787. The hybrid system— only later called the “ElectoralCollege” — represented a victory forsupporters of a strong chief execu-tive, a compromise between large andsmall states and a partial bow toadvocates of a role for popular opin-ion in the process. 9

Despite the difficulties, the Framerspronounced themselves satisfied with

the result. The system, AlexanderHamilton wrote in The Federalist Pa-pers No. 68, was “if . . . not perfect . . . atleast excellent.” 10

In historical hindsight, many crit-ics have viewed the system as con-genitally flawed; and, in fact, thesystem was significantly changed afterthe new government’s fourth presi-dential election in 1800. As modified,however, the system has survived foranother two centuries.

Delegates to the ConstitutionalConvention considered a variety ofways to choose the president, rang-ing from direct popular election toselection by Congress. The few sup-porters of direct popular election —including the influential VirginianJames Madison — could not over-come the fears of “mob rule” amongthe majority of delegates. Instead, theconvention voted four times to letCongress elect the president. But thatidea engendered continuing opposi-tion from delegates who feared thechief executive would thereby besubservient to the legislative branch.

Early in the convention, JamesWilson of Pennsylvania suggestedindirect election by electors chosenfrom the states. Over the summer,the idea gained support as a second-best option. But the issue remainedunsettled and was referred, alongwith many others, on Aug. 31 to an11-member “Committee on Post-poned Matters.” Within the commit-tee, John Dickinson, who had servedas chief executive of both Delawareand Pennsylvania, argued at a criticalpoint that a powerful chief executivewould be accepted only if the peoplewere somehow involved in the selec-tion. His stance prompted Madisonto take out pen and paper and sketchwhat emerged — with one slightchange — as the convention’s finalchoice.

Madison’s solution gave somethingto all sides, as journalist Fred Barbash

Continued from p. 986

Dec. 8, 2000 989CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

ChronologyBefore 1800U.S. Constitution establishes theElectoral College system forelecting the president.

1787Constitution provides for presidentto be elected by “electors” ap-pointed by states; each state freeto determine method of choosingelectors; plan calls for second-place finisher to become vicepresident and for House ofRepresentatives to elect presidentif no candidate has majority.

•

1800s Electoral Collegeis tested in three contentiouselections but survives with onesignificant modification; statesgradually move to popularelection of presidential electors.

1800-1801Presidential election is throwninto House, which takes 36ballots to pick Thomas Jeffersonover Aaron Burr.

1804The 12th Amendment provides forseparate election of vice president.

1824-25John Quincy Adams trails inpopular vote and electoral vote toAndrew Jackson but is electedpresident after one House ballot.

1830sMost states adopt popularelection of presidential electors;by 1860, only South Carolinalets state legislature choose.

1845Congress adopts uniform national

Election Day: first Tuesday afterfirst Monday in November.

1876-77Rutherford B. Hayes is electedpresident with one-vote ElectoralCollege majority, 185-184, after15-member commission splitsalong party lines in awardinghim disputed votes from threeSouthern states.

1887Electoral Vote Count Act speci-fies state legislatures’ authorityto adopt procedures for choos-ing electors.

1892Michigan law awarding electoralvotes by congressional districtupheld by U.S. Supreme Court; inNovember election state gives ninevotes to Republican BenjaminHarrison and five to DemocratGrover Cleveland. Law is repealedbefore next presidential election.

•

1900s-PresentElectoral College issue surfacesperiodically, but no constitu-tional amendment emergesfrom Congress.

1950Senate approves “proportionalvote” plan to divide state elec-tors on basis of popular vote;House kills measure.

1960John F. Kennedy wins ElectoralCollege majority over Richard M.Nixon, 303-219; popular-votemargin is closest in 20th century.Fourteen unpledged electors andone “faithless” Republican electorvote for Sen. Harry F. Byrd, D-Va.

1968Nixon wins Electoral Collegemajority over Democrat HubertH. Humphrey and third-partycandidate George Wallace (301-191-46); Nixon and Humphreyhad both vowed not to negotiatewith Wallace if election throwninto House.

1969House approves constitutionalamendment to shift to directpopular election of president;measure dies after Senate filibus-ter in 1970. Maine, in 1969,replaces winner-take-all withdistrict-by-district system.

1980-1988Electoral College issue fades asRepublican candidates win threesuccessive elections with deci-sive popular votes and electoralmajorities. One Democraticelector in 1988 votes for vice-presidential nominee LloydBentsen to protest system.

1992Strong third-party bid by H. RossPerot stirs fears of throwingelection to House, but BillClinton wins Electoral Collegemajority as Perot fails to carryany state. Nebraska adoptsdistrict voting for electors.

2000Democratic Vice President AlGore edges Republican Gov.George W. Bush of Texas inpopular vote, but ElectoralCollege outcome turns on closecount in Florida; Gore and Bushvie in courts over recount.

2001New Congress convenes, Jan. 3;meets Jan. 6 to count electoralvotes for president and vicepresident; inauguration, Jan. 20.

•

•

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

990 CQ Researcher

Continued from p. 988

Why the Framers Created the Electoral College

A lexander Hamilton explained theFramers’ reasons for creating theElectoral College to elect the

president in The Federalist No. 68,one of the celebrated essays that JamesMadison, John Jay and Hamilton wrotein 1788 urging ratification of theConstitution:

“It was desirable that the sense ofthe people should operate in the choiceof the person to whom so important atrust was to be confided. This end willbe answered by committing the rightof making it, not to any pre-establishedbody, but to men chosen by the peoplefor the special purpose, and at theparticular conjuncture.

“It was equally desirable that theimmediate election should be made by

explained in The Founding, his bi-centennial reconstruction of theconvention’s proceedings. The deci-sion to allot electoral votes based onthe number of senators and repre-sentatives from each state favoredlarge-population states like New Yorkand Pennsylvania and the South,where slaves were counted under theinfamous three-fifths formula — eachslave was counted as three-fifths ofa person — for determining congres-sional apportionment.

But Madison accommodated smallstates, such as New Jersey and Con-necticut, by providing that if no can-didate received a majority of theelectors’ votes, the Senate — withequal representation among the 13states — would choose the presidentfrom among the five candidates withthe highest number of votes.

The plan sought to prevent thepresidential electors from becominganother power-hungry branch ofgovernment by requiring them tomeet only in their respective statecapitals rather than as a single body.

The plan also envisioned the electorstypically serving as a nominatingbody, with the final choice oftenlikely to devolve on Congress. In-deed, it reinforced that possibility byproviding that each elector wouldcast two votes for president — withthe second-finishing candidate be-coming vice president.

The convention approved the planwith one minor change: The Houserather than the Senate would choosethe president if no candidate receivedan electoral vote majority. Each statewould still have an equal voice —one vote each. The final plan did notspell out, however, how each con-gressional delegation would arrive atits single vote. And it gave the Senatethe job of electing the vice presidentif no candidate received a majority.

The Framers expected the electors— as Hamilton explained in The Feder-alist No. 68 — to be “men . . . most ca-pable of acting under circumstances fa-vorable to deliberation.” The anticipateddeliberation never happened. GeorgeWashington was elected president twiceunanimously in 1789 and 1792.

By then, political parties had be-gun to form. The Federalist JohnAdams was narrowly chosen as vicepresident for a second term in 1793.Then in 1796 Adams barely defeatedthe anti-Federalists’ leader, ThomasJefferson, for the presidency, 71-68.Though political adversaries, Adamsand Jefferson served as president andvice president together for four years.

Electoral Contention

T he Electoral College system wassorely tested in three contentious

elections in the 19th century: Twowere thrown into the House of Rep-resentatives (1800, 1824), and a thirdwas decided by a commission spe-cially created by Congress (1876). Inthree races — 1824, 1876 and the1888 contest between Grover Cleve-land and Benjamin Harrison — acandidate became president with anElectoral College majority after plac-ing second in the popular vote. De-

Alexander Hamilton

men most capable of analyzing thequalities adapted to the station, and actingunder circumstances favorable todeliberation, and to a judiciouscombination of all the reasons andinducements which were proper togovern their choice. . . .

“It was also peculiarly desirable toafford as little opportunity as possibleto tumult and disorder. . . . [A]s theelectors, chosen in each State, are toassemble and vote in the State inwhich they are chosen, this detachedand divided situation will expose themmuch less to heats and ferments,which might be communicated fromthem to the people, than if they areall to be convened at one time, inone place.”

Dec. 8, 2000 991CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

spite the controversies, reform effortsfailed to advance, although the sys-tem evolved to give voters the deci-sive role in determining how thestates’ electoral votes were to be cast.

The election of 1800 marked thenew republic’s first change of powerfrom one party to another, but theElectoral College system confoundedthe decision-making process. Adamsran for re-election on a Federalistticket with Charles Pinckney for vicepresident; Jefferson was the anti-Fed-eralist (Republican) candidate forpresident with Aaron Burr — a NewYorker credited with winning his statefor the party — for vice president.

Jefferson and Burr led in electoralvotes, but with no differentiated votesfor president and vice president, noneof the candidates had a majority. Thecontest went to the House, whichelected Jefferson on the 36th ballotafter the Federalist Hamilton threwhis support to Jefferson over themercurial Burr.

The election demonstrated theimpracticality of having electors casttwo undifferentiated votes for presi-dent. The House in 1802 approved aproposal to separate the presidentialand vice-presidential elections, but itfell one vote short of the necessarytwo-thirds majority in the Senate. Thenext Congress, with a solid Republi-can majority, approved the amend-ment in December 1803 over Feder-alists’ opposition. States quickly rati-fied the 12th Amendment in time forthe 1804 election. Besides changingthe vice presidential election, theamendment also reduced to three thenumber of candidates for the Houseto consider in the event of no elec-toral vote majority.

The House again elected the presi-dent in 1824 after a four-way race leftno candidate with an electoral votemajority. Andrew Jackson led JohnQuincy Adams, 99-84, with formerTreasury Secretary William Crawfordand Sen. Henry Clay trailing with 41

and 37 votes, respectively. In theHouse, Clay threw his support toAdams, who was elected on the firstballot. Jackson and his supporters,already angry at the defeat in the faceof his popular vote and electoral votemargins, raised charges of politicalcorruption when Adams then namedClay as secretary of State.

By the 1830s, the Electoral Collegehad evolved into something like thepresent system. By 1824, a substan-tial majority of states — 18 of 24 —chose presidential electors by popu-lar vote. By 1860, only South Caro-lina still gave the power to the leg-islature. The idea of electors’ exercis-ing independent judgment had longsince disappeared: Electors werechosen on the basis of party loyalty.States had also uniformly shifted towinner-take-all systems. And in 1845Congress established a uniform na-tional election day: the first Tuesdayafter the first Monday in November.

The Electoral College’s gravest testcame in the 1876 contest betweenDemocrat Samuel J. Tilden and Re-publican Rutherford B. Hayes. Tildenled the popular-vote count and ini-tially appeared to have a comfortableelectoral vote majority. But Republi-cans raised accusations of voting ir-regularities to challenge the results inFlorida, Louisiana and South Caro-lina.

Presented with rival electoral slatesfrom the three states, Congress cre-ated a bipartisan, 15-member com-mission to resolve the dispute. Su-preme Court Justice Joseph Bradley,a reputedly independent Republican,voted with the seven other Republi-cans on the panel to certify the GOPslates and give Hayes a 185-184 vic-tory. Hayes squelched potential op-position from Southern Democrats byagreeing to withdraw federal troopsfrom the South once in office —effectively ending Reconstruction.

Throughout the 19th century, morethan 200 proposals to revise the Elec-

toral College were introduced inCongress. Two proposals recurred:one to require states to allot electorsby congressional district, another toaward electors proportionately ac-cording to the state’s popular vote.Both ideas failed because states sawthe winner-take-all system as enhanc-ing their political power.

A Workable System?

C ritics of the Electoral College con-tinued to offer proposals for

change during the 20th century.Twice, they got as far as winningapproval for an amendment from onechamber of Congress — but neverfurther. Public opinion appeared toback direct election of the president.But the system uniformly producedelectoral vote majorities for popular-vote winners, reducing any pressurefor change.

The critics’ arguments centered ontwo purportedly dangerous scenarios:the possibility of either throwing theelection to the House or installing asecond-place finisher in the WhiteHouse. Neither fear materialized.Third-party candidates won electoralvotes in 1912, 1924, 1948 and 1968,but never enough to create a dead-lock.

The closest race was in 1968, whenformer Alabama Gov. George C.Wallace, running on a states’-rights plat-form, carried five Southern states for 46electoral votes. Republican Richard M.Nixon nonetheless gained an electoralmajority, 301-191, over DemocratHubert H. Humphrey. Nixon andHumphrey both maintained that theywould not have negotiated with Wallacefor support. For his part, Wallace latertold journalist Peirce that he would havetried to instruct his electors to go forNixon rather than let the contest go tothe House. 11

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

992 CQ Researcher

As for the popular-vote issue, thefirst-place finisher won an ElectoralCollege majority in every electionfrom 1892 until this year’s race —even in close contests. DemocratKennedy had a narrow 118,000-votemargin over Nixon in 1960 but acomfortable 303-219 electoral major-ity; Nixon won the 1968 electoralcount while finishing fewer than500,000 votes aheadof Humphrey.

Of the variousreform proposals of-fered by critics, onlytwo won approvalby one or the otherchamber of Con-gress. In 1950, theSenate approved, 64-27, a “proportionalvote” plan to divideeach state’s electoralvotes according tothe candidates ’popular vote. Sup-porters — Demo-crats and moderateand liberal Republi-cans — argued theplan would moreaccurately reflect thepopular vote. Oppo-nents warned that itwould encouragecreation of third par-ties. After Senatepassage, the House killed the mea-sure, 134-210. Republicans came tofear the plan would strengthen thepower of the then solidly DemocraticSouth, while liberal Democrats wor-ried it would weaken the influenceof big-city states. 12

With the three-way 1968 contestfresh in mind, opponents of the Elec-toral College achieved their greatestsuccess in 1969, when the Housevoted 338-70 to scrap the systemaltogether in favor of direct popularelection of the president, with a run-off if no candidate received more

than 40 percent of the vote. Thelawmakers’ lopsided vote followed acloser 162-246 vote to substitute adifferent reform plan: mandatory dis-trict-by-district allocation of electoralvotes.

A year after House passage, how-ever, the direct-vote measure diedin the Senate, victim of a filibusterby Southern and small-state sena-

tors. Supporters — led by Sen. BirchBayh, D-Ind. — failed twice to cutoff debate in 1970, first falling sixvotes short of the three-fifths major-ity needed, and then five votesshort. 13

Bayh pushed the direct-vote planthroughout the 1970s and succeededin getting the proposal to the Senatefloor again in 1979. But the 51-48vote in favor of the amendment fell15 short of the two-thirds majorityneeded. A majority of Republicansand Southern Democrats opposed theplan, as expected. But supporters

were surprised by defections from adozen Northern liberals — includingnine Democrats and three Republi-cans, most from big states. Bayh saidlobbying by Jewish and civil rightsgroups — which saw the ElectoralCollege as helping liberals carry big-city states — combined with the lackof public interest in the issue to killthe amendment. 14

The issue faded evenfurther through the1980s as RepublicansRonald Reagan andGeorge Bush reachedthe White House withdecisive electoral votevictories. But a seem-ingly strong third-partybid by political maver-ick H. Ross Perot in 1992renewed concern aboutan Electoral Collegedeadlock. Perot’s sup-port dropped, however,after he withdrew fromand then returned to therace. He managed towin 18.9 percent of thepopular vote — thehighest third-party totalsince 1912 — but endedwith no electoral votessince he did not carryany state.

Electoral Cliffhanger

A l Gore and George W. Bushwrapped up their parties’ nomi-

nations for the presidency early inthe 2000 campaign and swappedleads in public-opinion polls at theend of the parties’ respective nationalconventions. Political observers of allpersuasions were forecasting one ofthe closest presidential contests inhistory. Then, as Election Day neared,

Continued on p. 994

Judge Charles Burton, chairman of the Palm Beach County vote-canvassing board, examines a ballot with Democratic lawyer Mark White,

left, and Republican lawyer John Bolton on Nov. 26. County officialshalted their recount after Florida’s secretary of state rejected a

request for more time for the manual recount.

AP P

hoto

/Char

les

Rex

Arb

oga

st

Dec. 8, 2000 993CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

Americans Have Elected 17 ‘Minority’ Presidents

Source: Michael Nelson, ed., Guide to the Presidency, 1996, Congressional Quarterly

George W. Bush or Al Gore will be the 17th U.S. president to be elected with a minority percentage of the popular vote. Three presidents actually trailed their opponents in the popular vote: John Quincy Adams was elected by the House in 1825 after placing second in a four-way race; Rutherford B. Hayes was elected in 1885 after a special commission awarded him disputed electoral votes from three Southern states; and Benjamin Harrison won an electoral-vote majority in 1888 even though Grover Cleveland led the popular vote.

1824Jackson 41.34Adams 30.92Clay 12.99Crawford 11.17

1844Polk 49.54Clay 48.08Birney 2.30

1848Taylor 47.28Cass 42.49Van Buren 10.12

1856Buchanan 45.28Fremont 33.11Fillmore 21.53

1860Lincoln 39.82Douglas 29.46Breckinridge 18.09Bell 12.61

1876Tilden 50.97Hayes 47.95Cooper 0.97

1916Wilson 49.24Hughes 46.11Benson 3.18Others 1.46

1948Truman 49.52Dewey 45.12Thurmond 2.40H. Wallace 2.38

1960Kennedy 49.72Nixon 49.55Others 0.72

1968Nixon 43.42Humphrey 42.72G. Wallace 13.53Others 0.33

1992Clinton 43.01Bush 37.45Perot 18.91Others 0.64

2000Bush 48.56Gore 48.77Nader 2.67Others 0.00

1880Garfield 48.27Hancock 48.25Weaver 3.32Others 0.15

1884Cleveland 48.50Blaine 48.25Butler 1.74St. John 1.47

1888Cleveland 48.62Harrison 47.82Fisk 2.19Streeter 1.29

1892Cleveland 46.05Harrison 42.96Weaver 8.50Others 2.25

1912Wilson 41.84T. Roosevelt 27.39Taft 23.18Debs 5.99

Percent of popular vote

Year/Candidate

Percent of popular vote

Year/Candidate

Percent of popular vote

Year/Candidate

Percentages of popular vote received in elections that elected a “minority” president (shown in boldface)

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

994 CQ Researcher

experts and strategists were openlyspeculating that one candidate mightwin the popular-vote contest only tolose the presidency on electoral votes.

In the most common scenario,observers speculated that Bush —who led in the polls in the weekbefore the election — could lead thepopular vote while Gore won anElectoral College majority by captur-ing most of the country’s biggeststates, including California and NewYork, where he held commandingleads. Less frequently, observersspeculated that Gore might win thepopular-vote tally while Bush claimedthe electoral vote by sweeping theSun Belt and Mountain states, includ-ing the third and fourth biggest prizes:Texas and Florida.

The possibility of a disparity be-tween the popular vote and the elec-toral vote worried some politicalobservers. “This has been a constitu-

tional crisis waiting to happen,” JeffManza, a sociology professor andpolitical analyst at NorthwesternUniversity in Chicago, remarked twoweeks before the election. “The newpresident’s mandate would be lost ormuddied,” James Thurber, director ofthe Center for Presidential and Con-gressional Studies at American Uni-versity, warned. 15

The fears prompted Sen. Durbinto renew his sponsorship of a con-stitutional amendment to abolish theElectoral College. “Our current sys-tem disenfranchises millions of vot-ers who happen to vote for the losingpresidential candidate in their state,”Durbin said.

Other experts and observers, how-ever, were untroubled. “Only simple-minded majoritarianism holds that the‘nation’s will’ would be ‘frustrated’and democracy ‘subverted’ . . . werean electoral vote majority to go to acandidate who comes in a close

second in the popular-vote count,”columnist George F. Will wrote daysbefore the election. “It’s not veryprobable,” political scientist Best re-marked, “and, anyway, it isn’t thedisaster that the fearmongers wouldmake it seem.” 16

In any event, the prevailing wisdombefore the election held the possibilityof a popular vote-electoral vote mis-match to be slim at most. A WashingtonPost reporter termed the speculation“fun but not frightening.” 17

Gore and Bush, however, appar-ently never directly addressed theissue of revising the Electoral Collegeduring the 2000 campaign. In fact,neither was on record on the ques-tion. Interestingly, though, both can-didates’ fathers had supported abol-ishing the Electoral College whileserving in Congress. Bush’s fathervoted for the popular-election consti-tutional amendment while serving inthe House in 1969. Gore’s father —the late Sen. Albert Gore Sr., D-Tenn.— voted the next year with oppo-nents of the Electoral College in anunsuccessful effort to end the filibus-ter that blocked a vote on the amend-ment in the Senate.

On the eve of the election, offi-cials in both campaigns were predict-ing complete victories for their can-didates. Karl Rove, Bush’s chief strat-egist, was forecasting a six- or seven-point margin in the popular vote and“a substantial margin” of around 320electoral votes. Gore campaign Chair-man William Daley predicted a two-and-a-half to three-point margin and290 electoral votes. 18

The actual election results con-founded the experts: Gore held apopular-vote lead of about 200,000votes the day after the election, whilethe electoral vote outcome hung onthe close contest in Florida. On Nov.8, as Florida began a mandatoryrecount under state law, Gore ac-knowledged that his popular-votevictory was not determinative.

Continued from p. 992

Public Would Abolish Electoral College

Nearly two out of three Americans favor abolishing the Electoral College and electing the president by direct popular vote. Similar majorities have backed the idea in surveys since 1966. People with higher education levels are less likely to favor changing the system.

Source: Poll taken by Gallup Organization, Nov. 11-12, 2000

Which would you prefer:

To amend the Constitution so the candidate who receives the most totalvotes nationwide wins the election?

To keep the current system, in which the candidate who wins the most votes in the Electoral College wins the election?

Respondents’ Education Level

Post- College Some High schoolTotal graduate Graduate College or less

Amend the 61% 48 52 63 65Constitution

Keep the 35% 46 44 34 30Current system

Dec. 8, 2000 995CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

“Despi te the fact that JoeLieberman and I won the popularvote,” Gore said, “under our Consti-tution, it is the winner of the Elec-toral College who will be the nextpresident.”

For his part, Bush expressed con-fidence in an ultimate victory. “It’sgoing to be resolved quickly,” hesaid of the Florida recount. Then,with running mate Cheney at his side,Bush declared: “I’m confident thatthe secretary and I will be president-elect and vice president-elect.”

CURRENTSITUATION

Recounts and Contests

N early three weeks after 6 millionFloridians cast their ballots in the

presidential election, the state’s three-member canvassing board an-nounced the “certified” results in anationally televised, early Sundayevening session on Nov. 26. Thecount gave Bush a 537-vote victoryover Gore: 2,912,790 to 2,912,253.

“Accordingly, on behalf of the StateElections Canvassing Commissionand in accordance with the laws ofthe State of Florida,” Secretary of StateHarris concluded, “I hereby declareGov. George W. Bush the winner ofFlorida’s 25 electoral votes for thepresident of the United States.”

Harris’ announcement of a normallyroutine post-election procedure fol-lowed an extraordinary political andlegal drama that included contentiousand excruciatingly tedious manual re-counts of votes in several of Florida’s 67counties and lawsuits that traversed

state and federal courts up to the U.S.Supreme Court. And far from conclud-ing the election, the announcementonly set the stage for an unprecedentedelection contest by Gore in Floridacourts challenging the officially certi-fied results as inaccurate.

Election Night MiscuesThe drama began at 8 p.m., East-

ern time, on Election Night, Nov. 7,when the television networks allprojected Gore to be the winner inFlorida — only to withdraw the pro-jection two hours later, then declareBush the winner four hours after that.

With Florida listed in the Bush col-umn, Gore called the Texas governorto concede but retracted the conces-sion in a second call after an aide con-vinced him that the outcome was notyet known. Around 4 a.m., the networkschanged their minds again and pro-nounced the race too close to call.

The unofficial Bush lead of 1,784votes in Florida triggered a state law

requiring an automatic recount when-ever the margin in a race is less thanone-half of 1 percent of the votescast. Over the next four days, mostcounties in the state completed ma-chine recounts — and Bush’s marginfell to 327 votes. Meanwhile, the Gorecampaign had asked for hand re-counts in four heavily Democraticcounties: Volusia, along the centralEast Coast, and Broward, Palm Beachand Dade in South Florida.

The Gore request came against thebackdrop of a controversy over the pur-portedly confusing presidential ballotused in Palm Beach County. The so-

called butterflyballot — designedby a Democraticelection officialTheresa LePore —listed the 10 presi-dential and vice-presidential ticketsin two, side-by-side columnsrather than a singlevertical column.The perforatedboxes on thepunch card, how-ever, were ar-ranged in a singlecolumn. As a re-sult, even thoughthe Gore-Lieberman ticketappeared immedi-ately below theBush-Cheney slatein the left column,the Gore box was

third on the punch card — immediatelybelow the box for Reform Party candi-dates Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster.

Gore campaign officials said thatmany voters found the ballot confus-ing. They claimed that the confusionwas the only explanation forBuchanan’s disproportionately highshowing of some 3,400 votes in thecounty and the large number of

Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announces thecertification of Florida’s presidential ballots on Nov. 26,

giving 2,912,790 votes to Republican George W. Bush and2,912,253 to Al Gore — a 537-vote margin.

AFP

Photo

/Pet

er M

uhly

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

996 CQ Researcher

ballots discarded with two boxespunched out — for Gore andBuchanan.

Lawyers representing some countyvoters filed a state court suit, claim-ing the design violated state lawrequiring that ballots for electronic orelectromechanical voting systems listcandidates “as far as practicable inthe order of arrangement providedfor paper ballots.” As a remedy, theyasked for a new vote in the county.

The major legal dispute, though,turned on the deadline for countiesto submit election returns to Harris’off ice. In onelongstanding section,Florida law providedthat any returns notsubmitted by 5 p.m.of the seventh dayafter the election“shall be ignored.”

Another sectionadded in 1989, how-ever, provided thatreturns received af-ter the deadline “maybe ignored.” Withmanual recounts in-complete in the threeSouth Florida coun-ties, the apparentconflict between thetwo sections left un-clear whether theamended totals couldbe included in thefinal returns. Harris said she wouldenforce the deadline and ignore late-filed recounts — triggering accusa-tions of partisanship from the Gorecampaign and a suit by the VolusiaCounty election board, later joinedby the Palm Beach board, seeking toforce her to accept the recounts whenfinished.

Leon County Circuit Judge TerryLewis gave the Gore campaign aninitial boost on Nov. 14 by ruling thatHarris had to exercise discretion indetermining whether to accept or

reject late-filed returns. The next day,Harris reaffirmed her original posi-tion, saying the discretion for latefilings was intended only in cases ofmechanical breakdowns or naturaldisasters.

After a second round of arguments— this time by lawyers for Gore andthe Florida Democratic Party — Lewisruled on Nov. 17 that Harris hadadequately complied with his previ-ous order and upheld her decision toreject the recounts.

The ruling seemed to be a fatalsetback for Gore, but the Florida

Supreme Court promptly stepped inby agreeing to hear the case andbarring Harris from certifying elec-tion results in the meantime. Theseven justices — six of them ap-pointed by Democratic governors anda seventh jointly appointed in 1998by outgoing Democrat Lawton Chilesand then Gov.-elect Jeb Bush —heard more than two hours of argu-ments from a battery of lawyers in anationally televised court session onNov. 20. Late the next evening, thecourt issued a unanimous, 42-page

decision requiring Harris to includethe late-filed returns before certifyingthe results.

“An accurate vote count is one ofthe essential foundations of our de-mocracy,” the court declared. Theright to vote, the justices said, tookprecedence over what they called “ahypertechnical reliance” upon theseven-day deadline provision. Withno other deadline set in the law, thecourt itself created one. It said Harrismust include any returns submittedby 5 p.m., Sunday, Nov. 26 — or by9 a.m., Monday, Nov. 27, if her office

was not open on Sun-day.

Chad FeverThe state high court

ruling touched off afrenzy of activity as theThanksgiving holidayweekend approached.Election workers inBroward, Dade andPalm Beach countiesworked in round-the-clock shifts, peering atpunch-card ballots totry to discern voters’intentions from chadsthat were either par-tially detached (“hang-ing”) or indented(“dimpled” or “preg-nant”). Bush’s lawyersinsisted the process

was inherently subjective. But Demo-crats defended the procedure, sayingthat it complied with Florida law —and with a Texas statute that Bushhimself had signed.

By Saturday evening, Broward hadfinished the task. The new countfound 1,146 additional votes for Goreand 579 for Bush — a net gain of 567for Gore. In Palm Beach, officialswere still working as the 5 p.m.Sunday deadline approached. Harrisrefused an extension and then disal-

Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis gave Al Gore an initial boost onNov. 14 by ruling that Secretary of State Harris had to exercise discretion

in determining whether to accept or reject late-filed returns.

AP P

ool

Photo

/Mar

k F

ole

y

Continued on p. 998

Dec. 8, 2000 997CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

Nov. 7, 2000Election in Florida too close tocall; Gov. George W. Bush hasunofficial 1,784-vote lead.

Nov. 8-11Florida counties complete ma-chine recount required by law;Bush lead falls to 327 votes.

Nov. 11-14Broward, Dade, Palm Beach andVolusia counties undertakemanual recounts requested byGore; federal court rejects Bushbid to block hand counts (Nov.13); Volusia finishes recount(Nov. 14).

Nov. 13Florida Secretary of StateKathleen Harris says she willenforce state law deadline ofNov. 14 for counties to submitreturns and will not includemanual recounts; electionboards in Volusia and PalmBeach counties ask state courtjudge to overturn deadline.

Nov. 14-16Judge Terry Lewis says Harrismust justify her position on dead-line; Harris reaffirms her decisionthe next day; Lewis hears newround of arguments Nov. 16.

Nov. 15Gore asks Bush to agree tohand recount in three countiesor to statewide recount; Bushrejects offer and declines tomeet with Gore.

Nov. 17Lewis upholds Harris’ decisionto disregard manual recounts,but Florida Supreme Court bars

certification of state resultspending oral arguments on Nov.20; federal appeals court rejectsBush suit over manual recounts.

Nov. 18Bush lead grows to 930 voteswith absentee ballots; Bushcampaign criticizes Democratsfor challenging absentee votesfrom military.

Nov. 21Florida Supreme Court rulesmanual recounts must be includedin presidential race if submitted toHarris by 5 p.m. Nov. 26.

Nov. 22-26Manual recounts: Broward fin-ishes, Nov. 25; Palm Beach fallsjust short of completion, Nov. 26;Miami-Dade stops recount Nov.22, pleading too little time. Goresuit to force Miami-Dade toresume counting is rejected byFlorida Supreme Court, Nov. 23.

Nov. 24U.S. Supreme Court agrees tohear Bush appeal of FloridaSupreme Court decision allowingextended deadline for certifyingpresidential race.

Nov. 26Harris announces that state elec-tions canvassing board certifiesBush as winner by 537-votemargin; Bush says he and Cheneyare “honored and humbled” tohave won Florida’s electoral votes.

Nov. 27Gore sues in Tallahassee CircuitCourt, claiming the number oflegal votes “improperly rejected”and illegal votes counted in

Nassau, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties is enough tochange outcome.

Dec. 1U.S. Supreme Court hears Bushappeal of deadline extension.

Dec. 2-3Judge N. Sanders Sauls takesGore suit under advisementafter hearing 26 hours oftestimony and arguments.

Dec. 4U.S. Supreme Court sets asideFlorida Supreme Court deci-sion extending certificationdeadline, sends case back forfurther proceedings. JudgeSauls rejects Gore request toinclude manual recount totalsand conduct further recounts;Gore asks Florida SupremeCourt for immediate appeal.

Dec. 6Trial scheduled in suit chal-lenging absentee ballots inSeminole County becauseRepublican Party officialschanged voter applications.

Dec. 12Time set by federal law for statesto designate presidential electors.

Dec. 18Presidential electors to meet instate capitals.

Jan. 5, 2001Congress to meet to countelectoral votes.

Jan. 20, 2001Inauguration of president andvice president.

Countdown in Florida

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

998 CQ Researcher

lowed the results of the nearly com-plete recount, which gave Gore a netgain of 215 votes.

As for Miami-Dade — with thebiggest cache of unchecked ballots— the election board began a re-count but then reversed itself andstopped counting on Wednesday,Nov. 22, concluding that the taskcould not be completed by the Nov.26 deadline.

Meanwhile, Bush had taken thedeadline extension issue to the U.S.Supreme Court. His lawyers contendedthat the state high court had violatedfederal law and theU.S. Constitution bychanging the electionrules after the ballot-ing. Defying virtuallyunanimous predic-tions from legal ex-perts, the SupremeCourt agreed on Nov.24 to hear the case andscheduled oral argu-ments for Dec. 1.

As the Thanksgiv-ing weekend cameto a close, Gore sup-porters acknowl-edged that the re-counts were not go-ing to yield enoughvotes to reverseBush ’s apparentlead. Even before theofficial certification, Gore himselfsignaled his intention to file an elec-tion challenge in a lunchtime inter-view with The New York Times thatwas posted on the newspaper’s Website by mid-afternoon. 19

Bush, however, was undeterred.Two hours after Harris’ announce-ment, the Texas governor stood inthe Texas state capitol to claim vic-tory and to urge Gore to drop plansto contest the election further. “Nowthat the votes are counted,” Bushsaid, “it is time for the votes to count.”

Uphill Battle

G ore’s legal team countered thenext day, Nov. 27, by filing a

formal election contest in LeonCounty Circuit Court in Tallahassee.James Baker III, the head of Bush’slegal team and a former secretary ofState under Bush’s father, quicklypointed out that the contest was thefirst such suit ever filed by a presi-dential candidate.

Florida election law gives judges lee-way in dealing with election contests,legal experts in the state say. But Gore’s

lawyers faced an uphill battle, nonethe-less, because of the limited time avail-able before the time prescribed underfederal law for a state to designate elec-tors — Dec. 12. And even as the suitproceeded, Florida Republicans wereconsidering a special legislative sessionthat could circumvent the courts by hav-ing the GOP-controlled legislature des-ignate the state’s electors.

Gore’s complaint claimed that thecertified vote totals giving Bush thevictory were “wrong” because of fourlegal errors during the recount:

• Miami-Dade “had no authority”to stop its manual recount afterfinding some errors in a sampleof precincts.

• Secretary of State Harris vio-lated state law by disregardingPalm Beach County’s partialrecount.

• Palm Beach County applied “in-correct legal standards” in fail-ing to count ballots with “par-tially perforated or indentedchads.”

• Nassau County was wrong tosubmit its original tally after amachine recount showed a

smaller vote total — atotal that gave Gore anet gain over the origi-nal count.

Bush’s legal teamdiscounted al l ofGore’s allegations and,equally importantly,opposed Gore’s pleafor Judge N. SandersSauls to immediatelystart a recount of thedisputed ballots. In-stead, Sauls set a hear-ing for Saturday, Dec.2. Meanwhile, the Bushcampaign went on theoffensive itself, filingsuits in five countiesseeking to reinstate ab-sentee ballots that hadbeen invalidated by lo-

cal election boards for failing tocomply with legal requirements.

At the Supreme Court, the justicesappeared divided during an ex-tended, 90-minute argument Dec. 1in Bush’s appeal of the Florida Su-preme Court decision extending thecertification deadline. Three dayslater, though, the court issued aunanimous decision that dealt Gorea setback. The justices set aside theFlorida high court’s decision, sayingthere was “considerable uncertainty”about the basis for the ruling.

Continued from p. 996

Leon County Circuit Judge N. Sanders Sauls watches Tom Spencer, aRepublican election observer, show how ballots were examined. On Dec.4, Sauls dismissed Al Gore’s suit challenging the popular vote in Florida.

AFP

Photo

/Tim

Slo

an

Dec. 8, 2000 999CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

Legally, the unsigned ruling wasmurky, though it indicated sympathyfor Bush’s position. In any event, theruling erased the Florida high court’sdecision for the moment, restoredBush’s 930-vote margin, and deniedGore the kind of legal and publicrelations victory needed to press hisbid for a recount.

Only a few hours later, Judge Saulsdealt Gore a more decisive — andpotentially fatal — setback by reject-ing the vice president’s plea for fur-ther manual recounts. Sauls said Gorehad produced “no credible statisticalevidence and no other competent,substantial evidence to establish by apreponderance a reasonable prob-ability that the results of the state-wide election in the state of Floridawould have been different from theresults which have been certified bythe state elections canvassing com-mission.”

Gore’s lead lawyer, David Boies,said he would file an immediateappeal with the state’s high court.Bush’s lawyers were ecstatic: “Thiswas as complete a victory as I’veever gotten,” attorney Philip Becksaid.

Meanwhile, Democratic voters intwo Florida counties _ Seminole andMartin _ were seeking to invalidatehundreds or even thousands of ab-sentee ballots because local electionofficials allowed Republican Partyworkers to add or correct informa-tion on voter applications in viola-tion of state law. Election officialsinsisted the changes were straightfor-ward administrative actions that didnot violate state law. Gore did notjoin the suits.

Impasse in Congress

C ongress usually is dormant be-tween November of an election

year until it convenes the followingJanuary. But the drama that unfoldedin the weeks following the razor-thinpresidential election elicited plentyof comments from lawmakers aboutthe Electoral College.

Several joint resolutions to abolishthe college and institute direct elec-tions were introduced in the last daysof the 106th Congress, and severalmore are expected to be introducedwhen the 107th Congress convenesin January. In addition to the pro-posal by Sen. Durbin, House billswere introduced by Reps. Jim Leach,R-Iowa, and Ray LaHood, R-Ill. Allthree measures would require thewinner to capture 40 percent of thepopular vote to avoid a runoff withthe runner-up.

But perhaps the biggest splash inopposition to the Electoral Collegehas come not from those legislatorsbut from someone who has yet totake office — first lady HillaryRodham Clinton, who garneredample media attention by calling forabolition of the Electoral Collegejust two days after winning electionas a Democratic senator from NewYork.

“I believe strongly that, in a de-mocracy, we should respect the willof the people,” Clinton said. “And tome, that means it’s time to do awaywith the Electoral College.”

Among political scientists, bothcritics and supporters of the ElectoralCollege said that is highly unlikelythat Congress will enact a constitu-tional amendment abolishing it.

“I don’t expect it to happen,” saysYale’s Amar. He notes that Wyomingand other sparsely populated states,which benefit under the Electoral Col-lege, have as much clout in the Sen-ate as heavily populated states likeCalifornia.

Moreover, not only must a consti-tutional amendment receive a two-thirds majority vote in both the Houseand Senate, but 38 of the 50 states

would have to ratify it. Analysts saythat the small-state legislatures wouldnever sign on to that.

Another obstacle for reformers isthe Republican-controlled Congress,which presumably would be loath toeliminate a voting scheme that fa-vored the presidential candidate oftheir party, Bush, who lost the popu-lar vote to Gore.

“Whichever side wins with theElectoral College is going to have astake in its legitimacy,” says GeorgeMason University political scientistJames Pfiffner.

Moreover, several congressionalleaders hail from sparsely populatedstates that traditionally have enjoyedan Electoral College advantage.

“I happen to think [the ElectoralCollege] may help the smaller states,”said Senate Minority Leader TomDaschle, D-S.D., whose state has theminimum of three electoral votes.“South Dakota isn’t the biggest statein the country, and we’re going tolook at those three electoral voteswith some degree of concern if welose it.” 20

But small-state opposition to theElectoral College is not monolithic.Daschle’s home-state colleague,Democrat Tim Johnson, has signedon as a cosponsor of Durbin’s billabolishing the Electoral College.

Perhaps the most prominent de-fender of the Electoral College is Sen.Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, chairman ofthe Senate Judiciary Committee,which will consider any proposedconstitutional amendments affectingthe college.

“I’ll die before I’ll let that consti-tutional amendment pass,” Hatchsaid. “It will be over my deadbody.” 21

Durbin acknowledges that support-ers of direct election have severaldaunting obstacles to surmount. None-theless, he says, “the unfortunate messof Nov. 7 gives us the perfect platformto raise this issue.”

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

1000 CQ Researcher

Continued on p. 1002

OUTLOOKElectoral Deadlock

B ill Clinton ends eight years asthe 42nd president of the United

States immediately after noon on Jan.20, 2001. That much is certain. Fourweeks after the Nov. 7 election, how-ever, the two major party candidatesto succeed him were both still claim-ing victory and fighting for the officein multipronged legal, political andpublic relations battles.

The outlook for the Electoral Col-lege, though, seems clearer. Support-ers and opponents agree the pros-pects for abolishing the ElectoralCollege or even significantly modify-ing it are slight. “There is no chanceof it happening in our lifetime,” saysLouis Michael Seidman, a constitu-tional law professor at GeorgetownUniversity who favors direct election.

The fierce legal battle for Florida’s25 electoral votes — and the presi-

dency — has inevitably evoked com-parisons to the Electoral College’sdarkest moment: the Tilden-Hayesrace of 1876, decided by an ostensi-bly bipartisan commission that di-vided strictly along partisan lines. Forthe most part, though, politicians,advocates and observers were insist-ing that the recount battle did notamount to a constitutional crisis. “OurConstitution can handle a lot,”Jonathan Turley, a law professor atGeorge Washington University inWashington, remarked. 22

Experts are divided on the ques-tion whether the Electoral Collegesystem has exacerbated the difficul-ties of the Florida recount. Support-ers of direct election say the fight forFlorida’s electoral votes would havebeen less important — and thereforeperhaps not fought at all — if therace simply went to the popular-votewinner. Supporters of the ElectoralCollege counter that direct electionwould actually increase the risk ofnasty vote recounts anywhere in thecountry as well as the danger ofpartisan manipulation of voting pro-cedures by dominant parties in eachstate.

On that score, the recount battleis producing a wide consensus onthe need to improve voting and tabu-lation procedures. “Our electoralprocess probably wasn’t up to thisin parts of Florida,” House Demo-cratic leader Richard Gephardt ofMissouri said. 23 Two GOP lawmak-ers — Iowa’s Leach and Peter A.DeFazio of Oregon — are sponsor-ing a House bill to create an electionreform commission. DeFazio says thecommission should have “a very,very broad mandate” to study every-thing from constitutional issues tovoting registration, ballot access, andvoting technology, including Internetvoting.

The uncertainty over the outcomein Florida also highlighted the pitfallsof the Electoral College system’sexisting procedures for resolvingdeadlocks. Most observers seemedapprehensive at best about the pos-sibility of throwing the election intothe House of Representatives, havingCongress decide on the validity ofelectoral votes, or allowing theFlorida legislature to select the state’spresidential electors. “Ticking timebombs,” Yale law Professor Amarcalled those options.

Some supporters of the ElectoralCollege say they do favor somechanges in the system — such asshifting to district-by-district award-ing of electoral votes or making theelectoral votes automatic to eliminatethe problem “faithless electors.” Butthey warn that broader changeswould lead to unforeseeable conse-quences. “If we change this, every-thing will change,” Best says.

“No one is sufficiently foresightedto forecast the effects that abolitionof the Electoral College would haveon the political system,” says lawProfessor Glennon. “It would haveeffects on campaign finance, on sepa-ration of powers, on federalism, onstate parties, and, most importantly

About the Authors

Kenneth Jost has covered legal affairs as a reporter, editor and col-umnist since 1970. He is author of The Supreme Court Yearbook (CQPress) and “Campaign Finance Reform” (The CQ Researcher, Feb. 9,1996) and has appeared on “PBS Newshour” and other TV and radioprograms. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Georgetown Uni-versity Law Center, a member of the District of Columbia Bar and anadjunct professor at Georgetown’s law school. He served as chieflegislative assistant to Al Gore from 1977 to 1980, when Gore was inthe House of Representatives.

Gregory L. Giroux is a political reporter at Congressional Quarterly.He was CQ’s lead reporter covering the House elections in 2000 anda principal writer of the 1998 edition of Politics in America, Congres-sional Quarterly’s biennial almanac. Giroux has appeared on C-SPAN,Fox News and National Public Radio to discuss reform of the presiden-tial-election process and other political topics. He has a Bachelor of Artsdegree in economics from the College of William and Mary.

Dec. 8, 2000 1001CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

noyes

At Issue:Should the Electoral College be abolished?

STEPHEN J. WAYNEPROFESSOR OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT,GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

WRITTEN FOR THE CQ RESEARCHER, DECEMBER 2000

t he Electoral College was designed to provide a methodof presidential selection for a form of government thatcombined a fragile federal union with republican

principles at a time of considerable rivalry and distrust amongthe states, no national communications system, very limitedsuffrage and memories of abuses of executive powers. A dualcompromise between large and small states and nationalistsand federalists, the Electoral College plan was conceived toinsure that the most qualified person, not necessarily the mostpopular, would be selected by electors, representing their statesbut rendering an independent judgment.

However, the development of the party system, which led tothe direct election of slates of partisan electors, permanentlyupset the original plan and created a party-based, plurality-rulesystem in which electoral votes were allocated by states on awinner-take-all basis. The major consequences of such anallocation were to disenfranchise partisan minorities, therebydiscouraging their participation in states with a dominant party;to increase disproportionately the clout of the largest states andtangentially, cohesive voting groups within them; to createincentives for major-party candidates to focus on the mostcompetitive states in order of size; and to preclude third-partyand independent candidates from having any reasonablechance to win. Add to these biases the potential for a discrep-ancy between the electoral and popular vote, as occurred in1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.

The Electoral College stands in the way of a democraticpresidential election. In a democracy, all votes are equal, but inthe Electoral College all voters are not equally represented. In ademocracy, the plurality rules; in the Electoral College it maynot. In a democracy, the larger the turnout the greater themandate, and the more likely elected officials will be respon-sive to a broader cross-section of their constituency. Not onlydoes the Electoral College lack turnout incentives for the lesscompetitive states, but it clouds the president’s electoralconstituency and makes its conversion into a governingcoalition that much more difficult.

Instituting a direct popular vote would reconcile democraticpractices with democratic theory. It would enhance thewinner’s legitimacy and probably increase the victor’s popularvote, thereby providing a greater mandate then currently existswhen less than one-quarter of the voting-age population votesfor the winner. But there is one important caveat to directelection: We must also have a national system of voting andtabulating the results.

JUDITH A. BESTDISTINGUISHED TEACHING PROFESSOR

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT CORTLAND

WRITTEN FOR THE CQ RESEARCHER, NOVEMBER 2000

i support the electoral vote system because it producesthe right winner, and the right winner is the candidatewho can govern this vast country because he has built

a broad cross-national federal coalition, because he can winthe popular vote in enough states.

We are a nation of states. The Constitution itself wasratified state by state. The federal principle is the fulcrum forthe whole national government: every branch of ourgovernment is based on the federal principle.

We are not simply autonomous individuals scatteredrandomly across the country. We are members of smallpolitical communities: the states. As such, we must obey thesame state laws; we share the same local economy, climate,roads, parks, and schools.

The federal principle makes presidents sensitive to stateand local issues. And it supports the separation of powersbecause both the president and Congress have the samebase. If the president had a plebiscitary base, he couldclaim to be the only authentic voice of the people, andthe balance of power would tilt dangerously to him andagainst Congress.

The right winner of the World Series is the team thatwins the most games, not the team that scored the mostruns over all. The win-games principle is the best test of thetwo teams’ abilities. In presidential elections, the win-statesprinciple is the best test of the candidates’ abilities togovern. It penalizes sectional and regional candidates,single-issue and ideological candidates. It rewards candidateswhose votes are properly distributed; it is designed toachieve majority rule with minority consent.

Why would minorities consent to majority rule? Only ifthey can see that on some occasions and on some issuesthey can be part of the majority. It would be foolish toconsent to a game you never can win. Under the win-statesprinciple, minorities of all kinds can be part of statewidemajority coalitions and have influence because they can bethe swing vote in a state, or even in a battleground state.

If we abandon this system, groups like farmers, who areonly 2 percent of the population, or blacks, who are 12percent, won’t have much influence. And the federally basedelection can make small states a key part of the winningcoalition. The electoral vote system produces the rightwinner because it rewards candidates who build politicalmajorities, candidates who can govern.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

1002 CQ Researcher

Continued from p. 1000

Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-5403; (202) 842-0200; www.cato.org. The libertarian think tank supportsretention of the Electoral College.

Center for Voting and Democracy, P.O. Box 60037, Washington, D.C.20039; (202) 828-3062; www.igc.org/cvd. The nonpartisan organizationstudies how voting systems affect participation, representation andgovernance.

Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, 421 New JerseyAve., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003; (202) 546-3221; www.gspm.org/csae.The committee’s director, longtime elections expert Curtis Gans, supportsrevising the Electoral College system.

League of Women Voters of the United States, 1730 M St., N.W., Suite1000, Washington, D.C. 20036; (202) 429-1965; www.lwv.org.The leaguehas long advocated abolition of the Electoral College and direct popularelection of the president.

National Association of State Election Directors, c/o Council of StateGovernments, 444 N. Capitol St., Suite 401, Washington, D.C. 20001; 202-624-5460; www.nased.org. The organization represents the officialsresponsible for the nuts and bolts of state elections.

National Association of Secretaries of State, Hall of States, 444 N.Capitol St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; (202) 624-3525; www.nass.org.The organization represents state secretaries of state, whose officestypically include state election divisions.

Office of Federal Register, National Archives and Records Adminis-tration, 800 N. Capitol St., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20408; (202) 523-5230; www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/. The office coordinates the functionsof the Electoral College and maintains a Web site with general back-ground information and detailed popular and electoral vote totals forpresidential elections from 1789 to the present.

perhaps, on the two-party system.For this prudential reason, I opposeexchanging one set of problems thatwe know for another set that wedon’t know.”

For their part, opponents of theElectoral College concede that effortsto change or abolish the system facelong odds but insist the 2000 presi-dential race proves the need forchange. “It probably won’t happen,but we’re going to have to generatea debate on it,” Georgetown’s Waynesays. “It’s going to take time, but tome no purpose is served by theperson with the most votes not win-ning.”

“There have been a few glitches,but there would have been glitcheswith any system,” Glennon responds.“As James Madison said, there wasno system they looked at that had noflaws. They picked the least imper-fect system.”

Notes1 Quoted in The New York Times, Nov. 9,2000, p. B8.2 Robert M. Hardaway, The Electoral Col-lege and the Constitution: The Case forPreserving Federalism (1994), pp. 3-4.3 Walter Berns, “Let’s Hear It for the Elec-toral College,” The Wall Street Journal, Dec.2, 1992, p. A11.4 Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Peirce,The Electoral College Primer 2000 (1999),pp. 165-66.5 Michael Glennon, When No Majority Rules:The Electoral College and Presidential Suc-cession (1992), p. 3.6 Ibid.7 Hardaway, op. cit., p. 19.8 Ibid., p. 9.9 For background, see Fred Barbash, TheFounding: A Dramatic Account of theWriting of the Constitution (1987), pp. 175-183; Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R.Peirce, The Electoral College Primer 2000,pp. 17-22. See also Congressional

Quarterly’s Guide to the Presidency (2d.ed.), 1996, pp. 185-186; CongressionalQuarterly’s Guide to Congress (5th ed.,2000), pp. 378-380.10 The Federalist No. 68.11 Neil R. Peirce and Lawrence D. Longley,The People’s President: The Electoral Col-lege in American History and the DirectVote Alternative (rev. ed., 1981), p. 75.12 Ibid., pp. 144-150.13 1969 CQ Almanac, pp. 895-901; 1970 CQAlmanac, pp. 840-845.14 1979 CQ Almanac, pp. 551-553.15 Manza was quoted in the Los AngelesTimes, Oct. 26, 2000, p. A17; Thurber inUSA Today, Oct. 31, 2000, p.1A. See alsoThe New York Times, Nov. 3, 2000, p. A26.

16 The Washington Post, Nov. 2, 2000, p.A29 (Will column); The (Newark) Star-Led-ger, Nov. 2, 2000, p. 1 (Best quote).17 David Von Drehle, The Washington Post,Nov. 2, 2000, p. A19.18 See The New York Times, Nov. 6, 2000, p.A19.19 See The New York Times, Nov. 29, 2000,p. A17.20 The Associated Press, Nov. 9, 2000.21 Quoted in Jim Woolf and Dan Harrie,“Utahns Voice Pros, Cons of ElectoralSetup,” The Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 12,2000, p. A1.22 CNN, “Larry King Live,” Nov. 17, 2000.23 NBC, “Meet the Press,” Dec. 2, 2000.

Dec. 8, 2000 1003CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

Selected Sources Used

Bibliography

Books

Barbash, Fred, The Founding: A Dramatic Account ofthe Writing of the Constitution, Linden Press/Simon& Schuster, 1987.The book — written to coincide with the Bicentennial

of the writing of the Constitution — includes a succinctaccount of the Constitutional Convention’s deliberationsthat produced the Electoral College system. Barbash hasserved variously as Supreme Court reporter and deputynational editor for The Washington Post.

Berns, Walter (ed.), After the People Vote: A Guide tothe Electoral College, AEI Press, 1992.The book includes separate sections detailing the op-

eration and evolution of the Electoral College and a thirdsection of reference materials. Berns is a resident scholarat the American Enterprise Institute.

Best, Judith, The Choice of the People: Debating theElectoral College, Rowman and Littlefield, 1996.Best, a professor of political science at the State Univer-

sity of New York at Cortland, provides an accessibledefense of the Electoral College along with a variety ofreference sources and opposing views on the issue. Thebook includes a two-page select bibliography. The bookupdates in a different format her earlier title, The CaseAgainst Direct Election of the President: A Defense of theElectoral College (Cornell University Press, 1975).

Glennon, Michael J., When No Majority Rules: TheElectoral College and Presidential Succession, CQPress, 1992.Glennon, a law professor at the University of California

at Davis, examines the law and procedure regarding“faithless electors” and House election of the president inthe event of an Electoral College deadlock. Three Su-preme Court decisions on Electoral College issues areincluded in appendixes; the book also contains chapternotes and a four-page bibliography.

Hardaway, Robert M., The Electoral College and theConstitution: The Case for Preserving Federalism,Praeger, 1994.Hardaway, a professor at the University of Denver College

of Law, traces the origins and development of the ElectoralCollege while strongly defending the system. The bookincludes chapter notes and a six-page bibliography.

Longley, Lawrence D., and Neal R. Peirce, ElectoralCollege Primer 2000, Yale University Press, 1999.The book summarizes the history and current status of the

Electoral College along with a closing chapter that even-

handedly lists the advantages and disadvantages of thesystem. The book includes appendixes, source notes and a14-page bibliography. Longley is a professor of politicalscience at Lawrence University; Peirce is a reporter andsyndicated columnist in Washington specializing in stateand local government. They are also co-authors of thelonger work, The People’s President (see below).

Nelson, Michael (ed.), Guide to the Presidency (2d.ed.), CQ Press, 1996.The comprehensive, two-volume guide includes exten-

sive information about the origins and development of theElectoral College. Nelson is a professor of political scienceat Rhodes College; the major chapter on the ElectoralCollege is by Charles C. Euchner of Holy Cross College andJohn Anthony Maltese of the University of Georgia.

Peirce, Neal R., and Lawrence D. Longley, The People’sPresident: The Electoral College in American Historyand the Direct Vote Alternative (rev. ed.), Yale Uni-versity Press, 1981.Journalist Peirce and political scientist Longley wrote

their first, comprehensive examination of the ElectoralCollege in 1968 and published a revised edition in 1981.In contrast to their shorter work — The Electoral CollegePrimer (see above) — the authors make clear theirsupport for abolishing the Electoral College in favor ofdirect popular election of the president. The book in-cludes detailed appendixes, source notes and a seven-page bibliography.

Wayne, Stephen J., The Road to the White House2000:The Politics of Presidential Elections, St.Martin’s/Bedford Press, 2000.Wayne, head of the American government program at

Georgetown University, provides an up-to-date overviewof the presidential election process from party primariesand conventions through the Electoral College. Eachchapter includes source notes, suggested readings andrelevant Web sites. In his newer book, Is This Any Wayto Run a Democratic Election (Houghton-Mifflin, 2001),Wayne pointedly analyzes a variety of issues surroundingthe presidential-selection process, including revision orabolition of the Electoral College.

Reports and Studies

U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on theConstitution, Committee on the Judiciary, “Propos-als for Electoral College Reform,” Sept. 4, 1997.The most recent congressional hearing on Electoral

College reform included testimony from five witnessesrepresenting all sides of the issue.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

1004 CQ Researcher

Florida Election

Glaberson, William, “Counting the Vote: Contesting anElection: Certification Challenge Would TransformCase,” The New York Times, Nov. 25, 2000, p. A14.Florida Supreme Court justices showed in their com-

ments during the oral arguments that they felt it wascritical to resolve all legal issues before the Dec. 12deadline. Most legal experts say it is unthinkable that astate court would be permitted to change election resultslater if the results would undo the selection of a presi-dent.

Milbank, Dana, “Tossed Absentee Ballots Have Pan-handle Area Up in Arms,” The Washington Post, Nov.22, 2000, p. A17.Nearly 40 percent of 3,733 overseas absentee ballots

counted were disqualified creating an uproar that stillresonates here in this heavily Republican corner of theFlorida Panhandle, home to the sprawling Eglin Air ForceBase, Pensacola Naval Air Station and other installations.

Perez-Pena, Richard, “Counting the Vote: The Over-seas Ballots: Floridians Abroad Are Counted, or Not,as Counties Interpret ‘Rules’ Differently,” The NewYork Times, Nov. 18, 2000, p. A11.Counties applied vastly different standards in deciding

whether to throw out ballots. A few county officialsopenly defied the Florida secretary of state’s instructionsto accept otherwise-valid ballots from overseas that werepostmarked after Election Day. Others freely admittedthat they did not understand those instructions. Andofficials in several counties said they feared that thecount was being botched, and that another round ofdelays and court challenges was likely.

Slevin, Peter, and Edward Walsh, “Florida SupremeCourt Puts a Hold On Certification of Election Re-sults,” The Washington Post, Nov. 18, 2000, p. A1.The Florida Supreme Court intervened dramatically in

the nation’s tangled presidential election, ordering FloridaSecretary of State Katherine Harris to withhold certifyingthe results until the court rules on Vice President Gore’slegal challenges to her authority and the validity of theFlorida vote count.

Van Natta, Don Jr., “Counting the Vote: Palm BeachCounty: Florida Judge Says He Can’t Order Revote,”The New York Times, Nov. 21, 2000, p. A22.Florida State Judge Jorge LaBarga says he lacks legal

authority to order a second presidential election in PalmBeach County, even if he were to determine that county’s“butterfly” ballot design confused voters enough to makedifference in election. He notes the Constitution statesclearly that presidential election must be held on sameday throughout the United States.

History of Electoral College

“How the Electoral College Works,” The WashingtonPost, Nov. 6, 2000, p. A33.It is possible for the candidate who wins the popular

vote to lose the election. This has happened three times,including 1824, when the House decided the electionbecause no candidate won a majority of electoral votes.

Kamen, Al, “The Federal Page in the Loop: FlunkingElectoral College, The Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2000,p. A31.With the election as tight as it now appears, there is at

least a possibility that the Electoral College will deadlock269 to 269 when it votes on Dec. 18. If it does, the newlyelected House of Representatives — not the current one— would officially count the Nov. 7 ballots after beingsworn in on Jan. 6, and find that, under the 12thAmendment, it must choose the next president.

Page, Susan, “In history, 3 popular-vote losers havewon presidency,” USA Today, Nov. 6, 2000, p. A15.At first, most states had state legislatures appoint elec-

tors, but over time all states changed to a popular vote.Each state gets a number of electors equal to its congres-sional delegation of senators and representatives.

Stout, David, “The 2000 Campaign: The Electoral Col-lege: How Winner of the Popular Vote Could LoseAfter All,” The New York Times, Nov. 3, 2000, p. A26.The Founders created the Electoral College because

they thought direct, nationwide elections impractical ina land of loosely knit former colonies whose people didnot know or trust each other that much and could barelycommunicate with one another. The Electoral Collegehas been crucial in three elections.

Von Drehle, David, “Campaign Diary Is 1888 Castinga Very Long Shadow? Split Decision Decided by Elec-toral College 112 Years Ago Could Be an Omen or ItCould Be Unique in U.S. Elections,” The WashingtonPost, Nov. 2, 2000, p. A19.Typically, the Electoral College makes close elections

look less tight, rather than more so. In 1960, for example,John F. Kennedy edged Richard M. Nixon by a tinypopular-vote margin, but the electoral vote spread soundedmuch bigger: 303 to 219.

White, Ben, “Electoral College: Whazzup? The Wash-ington Post, Nov. 2, 2000, p. C13.Why do we bother with this Electoral College business

at all? The people who created the U.S. Constitution andgovernment two centuries ago considered a number ofways to pick a president. They thought about lettingCongress decide. Or the state legislatures.

The Next Step

Continued on p. 1006

Dec. 8, 2000 1005CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

CQPressMore Reliable Sources for Hotly Debated Topics

CQ’s Award-Winning A-Z Series

Congress A to Z, 3rd ed.ISBN 1-56802-388-XHardbound • $95.00

Elections A to ZISBN 1-56802-207-7Hardbound • $95.00

CQ’s Desk Reference onAmerican Government

2nd ed.ISBN 1-56802-549-1Hardbound • $49.95

CQ’s Who’s Who in Congress2001: Preview EditionISBN 1-56802-557-2Paperback • $17.95

The Presidents, FirstLadies and Vice Presidents

1789-2001ISBN 1-56802-574-2Hardbound • $55.00

When No Majority RulesISBN 0-87187-875-5Paperback• $25.95

The Environment A to ZISBN 1-56802-583-1Hardbound • $55.00

The Presidency A to ZISBN 1-56802-359-6Hardbound • $95.00

The Supreme Court A to Z2nd ed.

ISBN 1-56802-357-XHardbound • $95.00

CQ’s Timely References

TO PLACE AN ORDER

CALL TOLL-FREE: 800.638.1710 • FAX: 800.380.3810WEB: WWW.CQPRESS.COM • OR E-MAIL: BOOKHELP@CQ.

COM

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

1006 CQ Researcher

Proposed Reforms

Amar, Akhil Reed, “The Electoral College, Unfair FromDay One,” The New York Times, Nov. 9, 2000, p. A23.A Yale Law School professor finds the Electoral College

a hopelessly outdated system that must be abolishedsince direct election would resonate better with Ameri-can value of one person, one vote. Amar says theElectoral College was designed to help Southern whitemales, which it has apparently done in the currentelection.

Dewar, Helen, and Matthew Vita, “Congress DebatesElection Reform Members’ Proposals Range FromModest Changes to Abolition of Electoral College,”The Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2000, p. A20.The confused and protracted conclusion of the presi-

dential election is stimulating broad debate in Congressabout major reforms to the election laws, with lawmakersdusting off proposals to abolish the Electoral College andproducing a range of new plans to overhaul the way inwhich Americans vote for their president.

McDougall, Walter A., “The Slippery Statistics of thePopular Vote,” The New York Times, Nov. 16, 2000,p. A35.A history professor at the University of Pennsylvania

argues against abolition of the Electoral College. He saysthat a national popular vote can be as indecipherable, notto mention inaccurate and dishonest, as an ElectoralCollege result and that abolishing the institution in favorof a national referendum could make every vote cast ordisqualified everywhere as potentially decisive as thosein Palm Beach County.

Page, Clarence, A Capitol Bind: How to Solve the ElectoralCollege Mess,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 15, 2000, p. A21.Despite the current upward spike in public outrage at the

Electoral College, an amendment to do away with it facesan uphill fight. The Electoral College has been assailedmore often than any other item in the Constitution. Morethan a hundred attempts have been made to change it.

Voting Technology

Drew, Christopher, and Ford Fessenden, “Counting theVote: The Mechanism: Alas, Vote-Count Machines AreOnly Human, The New York Times, Nov. 17, 2000, p. A1.Manufacturers who sell the voting systems that tallied

votes in Florida say machines can be, in ideal conditions,99.99 percent accurate; that a tiny error rate alone couldhave misread 345 votes—more than Gov George W Bush’scurrent winning margin. Another manufacturer says that,under realistic conditions, machines’ error rate can be even1 percent or more — a potential misreading of 34,500 votes

in Florida. A 1975 study for the Federal Election Commis-sion found only 99.5 percent of ballots read accuratelywhen card readers were used in Los Angeles Countyelection; errors usually consist of choices that are not readcorrectly; industry officials agree that ultimately the mostprecise way to count ballots is by hand.

Dugger, Ronnie, “Democracy Under Stress: Have but-terfly ballots and chads undermined the credibilityof how we elect our leaders?” Los Angeles Times,Nov. 19, 2000, p. A1.The vote-counting systems in Florida are not precision

machinery, such as adding machines. They are comput-ers, which are machines that obey orders. The antiqueVote-O-Matic punch-card voting systems in use in Browardand Palm Beach counties, where the canvassing boardsare recounting ballots, have been associated for 25 yearswith inaccuracies caused by slipping card feeds and“hanging chads,” which are tiny scraps of punched-outvote holes that do not fully detach from the vote card.

Kaiser, Rob, and John Van, “IIT to Examine Technol-ogy of Voting Process and Ways to Improve It,”Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 2000, p. A2.There’s got to be a better way to hold elections than the

routine that led the nation into the extended mess inFlorida, and educators at the Illinois Institute of Technol-ogy intend to find it. IIT students will explore existingtechnology and issue a report about how Americanelections could be improved so that few ballots would bespoiled, and voters could exercise their franchise with aminimum of confusion.

Mintz, John, “It’s Not as Easy as 1-2-3; Problems ExistWith Both Hand, Machine Counts,” The WashingtonPost, Nov. 19, 2000, p. A1.The type of voting machine used in Palm Beach County

and numerous other Florida counties — employing thepunch-card ballot system — is an antiquated contraptionthat has been denounced by many computing expertssince its invention in the 1960s. The federal governmenthas called for the elimination of punch-card machinessince 1988, saying they cause many people to cast invalidvotes or vote for the wrong candidate.

Will, George F., “Is This Any Way to Vote? The Wash-ington Post, Nov. 19, 2000, p. B7.Surely a national computerized service could help

states scrub voting rolls. Exemplary prosecutions shouldcommunicate society’s indignation about vote fraud. Anation dependent upon computers, ATMs and otherelectronic devices for trillions of accurate transactionscan devise Election Day polling-place technologies moresophisticated than those that involve paper being punchedor marked by pencils — sophisticated, yet simple enoughthat even a Palm Beach County voter can master them.

Continued from p. 1004

Dec. 8, 2000 1007CQ on the Web: www.cq.com

NEW

CQ’s Electronic Encyclopedia of American GovernmentLong recognized as the leading source of print references, CQ now bringsyou the definitive, one-stop electronic resource on American Government!

Based on the highly regarded A-Z Encyclopedia Series:The Presidency A-Z • Congress A-Z • The Supreme Court A-Z • Elections A-Z

The Electronic Encyclopedia of American Government is a comprehensiveoverview of the whys and hows of the American Government system. Createdfrom the CQ Press A-Z Encyclopedia Series, our web product offers original material written with CQ’s trademark journalistic clarity and expert understandingof the American Government.

Throughout the web site you will find many useful benefits and features such as,over 1,100 searchable topics covering the three branches of government, over900,000 words of text, over 200 illustrations, quarterly updates to keep data cur-rent, and a user-friendly Help feature. In addition, there is free access to GovOnline,an online service that features the best collection of hyperlinks available to keyAmerican Government online resources. You can also look forward to:

Benefits and Features

� Complete, up-to-date information including post-election, December 2000 updates

� Dozens of tables of data

� Flexible printing options offer attractive representation of topics as well asbrowse windows and search results screens

� User-friendly, integrated Help feature addresses frequently asked questions

� High-powered search and navigation features:• Simple or Boolean searches within or across all subject areas as well as

full-text searches• Search using subject, branch of government, or one of the 10 Quick

Search Topics listed at left• Browse by contents, alphabetical entries, branch of government, elections,

or illustrations.

PLUS:

� Complete text of the U.S. Constitution

� CQ’s Guide to the Constitution, a quick reference tool

� Click and Quiz – Challenge your knowledge of American Government against CQ experts

CQ’S ONE-STOP ELECTRONIC REFERENCE ON AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

Option Price

Online $400(Ref. Code AZON)

4 A-Z Volumes $380(ISBN 1-56802-486-X)

Complete Set $780(Ref. Code AZCSON)(4-volume set plus Online)

With 10 Essential QuickSearch Guides to:

The who’s who1. Biographies of American Leaders

The what’s what2. The U.S. Constitution, Articles and

Amendments3. U.S. Supreme Court Cases and

Decisions4. Political Parties in America

The who does what5. Division of Powers, Authority, and

Jurisdiction

The when6. Origins and Evolution of American

Democracy

The why and how7. How our Government is Organized8. How our Government Works9. Ethics and Qualifications

And10.Click and Quiz –

Test Your Knowledge . . . of American Government

CQ’s ElectronicEncyclopedia of

American GovernmentThe Presidency A-Z

Congress A-ZThe Supreme Court A-Z

Elections A-Z

For multiple-site pricing, call Meg Varley at 1-800-432-2250 ext. 620. For technical support, call 1-800-638-1710 or 202-822-1475 and select option 4.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

1008 CQ Researcher

Back IssuesThe CQ Researcher offers in-depth coverage of many key areas. Back issues are $10 for subscribers, $20 for non-subscribers.

Quantity discounts available. Call (800) 638-1710 to order back issues.

Or call for a free CQ Researcher Web trial!On-line access provides:

CHILDREN/YOUTHAdoption Controversies, September 1999Rethinking Ritalin, October 1999Child Poverty, April 2000Fatherhood Movement, June 2000

CRIMINAL JUSTICEPolicing the Police, March 2000Drug-Policy Debate, July 2000

EDUCATIONThe Digital Divide, January 2000Zero Tolerance, March 2000Community Colleges, April 2000Cheating in Schools, September 2000

ENVIRONMENTSaving Open Spaces, November 1999Energy and the Environment, March 2000Zoos in the 21st Century, April 2000Mass Extinction, September 2000Water Quality, November 2000

HEALTH CARE AND MEDICINEMedical Marijuana, August 1999Drugmakers Under Siege, September 1999Rating Doctors, May 2000Vaccine Controversies, August 2000Computers and Medicine, October 2000

LEGAL ISSUESClosing In on Tobacco, November 1999High-Impact Litigation, February 2000Gay-Rights Update, April 2000

MODERN CULTUREIslamic Fundamentalism, March 2000Future of Computers, May 2000Future of Books, June 2000Future of Language, November 2000

POLITICS/GOVERNMENTRefugee Crisis, July 1999Utility Deregulation, January 2000Legacy of the Vietnam War, February 2000

Campaign Finance Reform, March 2000Immigration Reform, July 2000Missile Defense, September 2000The Federal Reserve, September 2000Democracy in Latin America, Nov. 2000

TRANSPORTATIONTraffic Congestion, August 1999Airline Industry Problems, September 1999Auto Industry’s Future, January 2000

Future Topics

▲▲

▲

Religion in Schools

Hunger in America

Community Prosecution

• Searchable archives dating back to 1991.

• Wider access through IP authentication.

• PDF files for downloading and printing.

• Availability 48 hours before print version.

FACTFifteen of our presidents have beenelected, either by the Electoral Collegeor by the House of Representatives,who did not receive a majority of thepopular votes cast in the election.

QUESTIONSWhat exactly happens when theElectoral College vote becomes morethan a confirmation of the popularvote? Or if the House must select thenext president? How great an impact can third-party candidates have on splitting the ElectoralCollege? What was the intent of ourConstitutional Framers in establishing this wayof resolving presidential elections?

ANSWERSMichael J. Glennon, Professor ofLaw at the University of California,Davis, describes the process bywhich our President and VicePresident are elected. He identifiesand discusses key issues likely toarise with respect to the ElectoralCollege, House of Representatives,and Senate. He explores historicalprecedents, the pitfalls and unre-solved issues of the system and the

role of all groups involved, including politicalparties and the courts. Appendixes includeconstitutional provisions, related SupremeCourt cases and a bibliography.

Who Really Elects the President?

TO PLACE AN ORDER

CALL TOLL-FREE: 800.638.1710FAX: 800.380.3810

WEB: WWW.CQPRESS.COMOR E-MAIL: BOOKHELP@CQ.COM

1992. Paperback. 169 pages. ISBN 0-87187-875-5.

$25.95.