Malcolm Rivera
The Electoral College, formed to protect democracy, has now begun to threaten it. There have been over 700 attempts to reform or abolish it, but none have been successful. The Constitution allows states some leeway to make changes to how their Electoral College representatives are chosen. For instance, states can determine how electors are apportioned and chosen. However, abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, which has proven difficult to achieve. An alternative scheme, the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV), aims to bypass the constitutional amendment process by compelling states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of attempts to reform or abolish the Electoral College | Over 700 |
| Possibility of abolishing the Electoral College without amending the Constitution | Low |
| States' role in choosing how their Electoral College representatives are selected | Allowed by the Constitution and the courts |
| States' role after appointing presidential electors | Electors are free to vote as they choose |
| Possibility of Supreme Court deciding how individual electors vote | Yes |
| National Popular Vote Compact (NPV) | A scheme to bypass the constitutional amendment process and abolish the Electoral College |
| Number of states needed for NPV to go into effect | 270 out of 538 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
States can determine how electors are apportioned and chosen
The Electoral College was formed to protect democracy, but it has now begun to threaten it. The Constitution and the courts have allowed the states some leeway to make changes to how their Electoral College representatives are chosen. In 1892, the court upheld in McPherson v. Blacker that Congress can set the date nationally for the Electoral College to meet, but it also said that the states could determine how electors were apportioned and chosen.
The Constitution provides no express role for the states after appointing its presidential electors. Once appointed, electors are free to vote as they choose. The current system for electing a U.S. president traces back to 1787 when the Founding Fathers crafted a compromise between those who argued for the election of the president by a vote of Congress and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Constitution originally stipulated that the top vote-getter chosen by these electors would become president, and the individual with the second-most votes would be vice president.
However, after the presidential election in 1800 resulted in an acrimonious tie vote between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, the 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804. It provides for separate votes for president and vice president and specifies that those individuals must be from different states. In the ensuing 215 years, the Electoral College system itself has changed little, although the popular vote has been rightfully guaranteed to millions more previously denied on the basis of race, gender, and age.
Nebraska and Maine already award some of their electors to the winners of the congressional districts. An example of a state closely split by congressional district is Florida in 2016, where Trump won 14 districts and Clinton won 13. Under this option, Florida would give 15 Electoral College votes to Clinton and 14 to Trump.
Florida's Amendment 2: Voting Rights
You may want to see also
Supreme Court might decide how individual electors vote
The Electoral College was formed to protect democracy, but it has now begun to threaten it. There have been over 700 attempts to reform or abolish it, but none have been successful. This is because, regardless of its overall merits, change is always rooted in the politics of the day. While it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, it does allow the states some leeway to make changes to how their Electoral College representatives are chosen.
The Constitution and the courts have allowed states to determine how electors are apportioned and chosen. For example, in McPherson v. Blacker (1892), the court upheld that Congress could set the date for the Electoral College to meet, but also said that states could determine how electors were apportioned and chosen. In Ray v. Blair, the court ruled that the Constitution does not "bar a political party from requiring" electors to pledge support for the nominees of the national convention.
The Supreme Court might ultimately decide who gets to decide how individual electors vote. If this occurs, the court could provide states with additional guidance on how much leeway they have to impact the Electoral College vote that decides the U.S. presidency. While the 10th Circuit panel stated that "the Constitution provides no express role for the states after the appointment of its presidential electors," it also acknowledged that "once appointed, [electors] are free to vote as they choose."
The Supreme Court's involvement in deciding how individual electors vote could be a significant development in the ongoing efforts to reform or abolish the Electoral College.
Constitutional Amendment 101: Understanding India's Landmark Reform
You may want to see also
National Popular Vote Compact (NPV)
The National Popular Vote Compact (NPV) is a scheme that has emerged as an alternative to the constitutional amendment process, with the same result of nullifying the Electoral College. When a state passes legislation to join the NPV, it agrees to award its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who won the most votes in that state. The compact will go into effect when enough states have joined to reach a majority of electoral votes (270 out of 538). At that point, the NPV would effectively abolish the Electoral College, even for states that did not join the compact.
The NPV is seen by its supporters as a way to circumvent the difficult and unlikely process of amending the Constitution, which would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Throughout history, there have been over 700 attempts to reform or abolish the Electoral College, but none have been successful due to the political divide on the issue. Democrats generally support eliminating the Electoral College, while Republicans oppose it, arguing that it would reduce the political influence of smaller states.
The NPV has gained support in several states, with activists and state legislators working to enact the necessary legislation. However, some critics argue that the NPV would diminish the voice of smaller states in presidential elections, as the power to elect the president would rest primarily with the largest states and cities. The NPV has also been criticized as an attempt to manipulate the Electoral College out of existence, rather than going through the proper constitutional amendment process.
The debate around the NPV reflects the ongoing tensions between democratic ideals and the practical realities of the American political system. While the Electoral College was originally designed to protect democracy, many now argue that it threatens it by allowing candidates to win the presidency without a majority of the popular vote. The NPV is one proposal to address this issue, but it remains controversial and has yet to gain enough support to go into effect.
Illinois Constitution Amendments: Who Proposes Changes?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Awarding electors to congressional district winners
The congressional district method of awarding electors involves allocating one electoral vote to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in each of a state's congressional districts, with the remaining two electoral votes typically awarded to the statewide winner. This method can be implemented at the federal level through a constitutional amendment or by individual states.
Currently, Maine and Nebraska are the only states that use this method, with Maine adopting it in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992. In these states, the winner of the statewide popular vote receives two "at-large" electors, while the remaining electors are awarded to the winners of each congressional district. This allows these states to award electors to more than one candidate.
For example, in Florida in 2016, Trump won 14 congressional districts, while Clinton won 13. Under this method, Florida would have given 15 Electoral College votes to Clinton and 14 to Trump.
However, critics argue that the congressional district method would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter in every state politically relevant. It would also be challenging to implement on a state-by-state basis, as early adopters would face a first-mover disadvantage, reducing their influence compared to "hold-out" winner-take-all states. Additionally, the method introduces sources of inequality, with inequalities larger than those found in redistricting.
Amending the Constitution: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
Two electoral votes to national popular vote winner
The Electoral College has been a topic of debate in the United States, with over 700 attempts to reform or abolish it throughout history. The College was formed to protect democracy but has now begun to threaten it. One proposal to change the Electoral College without amending the Constitution is to allocate two electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, with the remainder of the votes apportioned by congressional district. This proposal aims to address the shortcomings of the current system, where the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes can lead to controversies and incentivize litigation.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would guarantee that the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., would get all the electoral votes from the enacting states. This ensures that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide receives enough Electoral College votes to become President. This proposal has already passed in 15 states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia, with over 3,800 state legislators supporting it.
The National Popular Vote law would apply the one-person-one-vote principle to presidential elections, making every vote equal. This addresses the current issue where voters in closely divided battleground states have an average of 200 times the weight of voters in other states in deciding the outcome. The popular vote lead has averaged 4,327,902 votes over the last seven presidential elections, while an average of only about 280,000 popular votes in a small number of states has decided the outcome.
The proposal to allocate two electoral votes to the national popular vote winner is a potential solution to the issues with the current Electoral College system. It would ensure that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide receives enough electoral votes to become President, making the election results more representative of the popular vote. This proposal also takes into account the congressional district breakdown, allowing for a more nuanced representation of the popular vote beyond a simple nationwide tally.
The Constitution's Latest Amendment
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Electoral College is a method of electing the president in the United States. It is a body made up of electors, who cast votes to decide the president and vice president.
There have been over 700 attempts to reform or abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College has been criticised for treating votes unequally, giving them more or less weight based on where voters live. This can result in a candidate winning the election despite losing the popular vote.
The National Popular Vote Compact (NPV) aims to bypass the constitutional amendment process. When enough states join the NPV to reach a majority of electoral votes (270 out of 538), the compact will go into effect. This would effectively abolish the Electoral College.
The Constitution and courts have allowed states some flexibility in deciding how their Electoral College representatives are chosen. For example, Nebraska and Maine award their electors to the winners of the congressional districts.
