A Short History of the Electoral College
Within the framework of our Constitutional Republic, the founding fathers created the Electoral College, which has served our country well for over two centuries. This unique system allows a body of electors–chosen in each state–to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. State laws determine how electors are selected, the qualifications necessary to serve, and restrictions on how they must cast their ballots.
The number of electors allocated to each state equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. Under the 23rd Amendment, the federal District of Columbia was allotted three electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. Today, the Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Since the representation is apportioned according to the population of the state, the popular wishes of the citizens as well as sectional and state interests are represented.
Slates of electors are pledged to cast their ballots for a presidential candidate. The candidate who receives the majority of Electoral College votes–at least 270–wins the election.
The Founders devised the Electoral College process because of their political philosophy and vast knowledge of history as well as their conception of human nature. They knew from ancient history that self-serving demagogues could arouse destructive passions in the populace during periods of social unrest or economic crises. Additionally, incitement of passions could lead to political violence and the overthrow of legitimate authority. As acknowledged in both The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers, the American Founders preferred ordered liberty and abhorred anarchy, which is frequently followed by despotic rule concomitant with the loss of freedom.
Consequently, the stabilizing function of the Electoral College remains as important today as originally intended by the framers at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Historical Perspective
An unusual situation occurred in the presidential election of 1801 that spurred the Electoral College to morph into the system we know today. According to the Constitution’s original provision implemented less than a decade prior, the candidate who received the most Electoral College votes became president, and the candidate receiving the second largest number of electoral votes became vice president.
In the 1801 election, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were running independently as Democratic-Republicans. The men soundly defeated their Federalist opponents, including the incumbent John Adams, but the election ended in a tie between Jefferson and Burr–the men recieved 73 electoral votes each. As the Constitution instructed, the election moved to the House of Representatives, where each state was allowed one vote. Historian Edmund Morgan explained:
Voting went on for more than one week through thirty-five ballots without the necessary nine-state majority being reached. Finally Hamilton, who considered Jefferson a lesser of evil than Burr, persuaded some of the latter’s supporters to cast blank ballots. Jefferson was declared elected.
Thus ended the impasse, and Aaron Burr became vice president.
To prevent a similar situation from happening again–namely, candidates running independently for both president and vice president–the 12th Amendment was passed 9 December 1803, and ratified 25 September 1804, modifying the Electoral College process. The offices of President and Vice President were placed on separate ballots, mandating that Electors must cast a distinct vote for President and another vote for Vice President. Beginning with the presidential election of 1804, all subsequent elections have functioned under these provisions.
Losing the Electoral College Vote Means Losing the Election
The presidential election of 1824 was the first time in American history the popular vote was actually recorded. In that election, Andrew Jackson received the most popular votes out of the four candidates. However, neither Jackson nor John Quincy Adams (who came second in the popular vote count) received a majority of the Electoral College votes. The election moved again to the House of Representatives, which selected Adams for president.
Time and fortune did come to smile on Jackson four years later, when “Old Hickory” defeated Adams in a rematch. That time, Jackson won a plurality of the popular vote and the required majority vote in the Electoral College.
Conversely, there have been four elections in American history where the president won the presidency while losing the popular vote, thanks to the quirks of the Electoral College. These were the presidential elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 in which Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, respectively, were elected.
Pursuing Equity and Fairness in National Elections
The will of the American people–determined by the ballots cast in the various states in the nation–is expressed through the Electoral College, whose function ensures that the interests of all Americans are heard during the electoral process–including those citizens from more sparsely populated states. In the eyes of the founders–and many still today–the Electoral College system does more good than harm.
The Electoral College system forces candidates to focus their campaigns in rural areas as well as urban centers, smaller states as well as their larger counterparts. Not doing so could result in a candidate’s loss of a state and its entire slate of electoral votes, rather than just losing small clusters of votes in a state.
In direct popular elections, it stands to reason that candidates concentrate their campaigning in heavily urban areas where they can gain more votes for their time and money invested, while less populated areas are ignored.
A word should be said about allowing proportional voting–as Maine and Nebraska allow–in the Electoral College system as opposed to the present “winner-take-all” system. Proportional voting dilutes the voting strength of any state that adopts it. If the procedure were uniformly adopted throughout the nation by amendments to state constitutions, it would defeat the purpose for which the Electoral College was wisely created and negate the benefits. Colorado voters recently defeated a measure to adopt proportional voting in their state.
There are many who wish to abolish the Electoral College. Twelve states have signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Vote Compact: California, Connecticut, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. This bloc of (staunchly Democrat) states represents 172 electoral votes. The compact would take effect when an additional 98 electoral votes were added. Georgia and Missouri, which comprise 16 and 10 electoral votes respectively, are currently considering joining the compact.
Despite the complaints, the Electoral College is working exactly as the founders intended–balancing federalism with direct representation.
