Simone Lawson
The Electoral College has been a topic of debate in the United States for decades, with over 700 attempts to reform or abolish it. The Electoral College is established in the Constitution and mentioned in multiple Amendments, and thus, any significant change or abolition would require a Constitutional Amendment. This would involve a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. While there have been several proposals for Constitutional Amendments to abolish the Electoral College, none have been successful due to partisan divisions and the current system benefiting Republicans. Some alternatives to a Constitutional Amendment have been proposed, such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which aims to capitalize on the constitutional guarantee that states are free to determine how they award their electoral votes. However, the NPVIC faces challenges and legal uncertainties.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Difficulty | Extremely difficult to amend the Constitution |
| Process | Requires a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, followed by the ratification of 3/4ths of the states |
| Number of attempts | Over 700 attempts to reform or abolish the Electoral College |
| Public opinion | Majority support change, but partisan divisions exist with Democrats generally supporting change and Republicans opposing it |
| Alternative methods | National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) |
| Previous proposals | House Joint Resolution 681, proposed by Representative Emanuel Celler; proposals by US Representative Gene Green in 2005 and 2009; joint resolutions by Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. and Senator Bill Nelson |
| State legislature preferences | 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment" in 1969; 6 were leaning toward opposition, and 8 were solidly opposed |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Electoral College is a ticking time bomb
The Electoral College system has been in place since 1787, and in the last 20 years, two Republican presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. The system is seen as undemocratic, and there is a clear partisan divide over its support. Democrats tend to support change, while Republicans tend to oppose it.
There have been various proposals to abolish the Electoral College, most of which involve a constitutional amendment. This would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification from three-quarters of the states. However, this is extremely difficult to achieve, especially with the current political landscape.
An alternative solution is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This system would allow states to determine how they award their electoral votes, and it does not require a constitutional amendment. However, the NPVIC also faces challenges, including uncertainty over how voters would respond if their state electors voted against the popular vote.
The Electoral College is a complex and divisive issue in American politics. With the risk of undermining public confidence in democracy and distorting the popular will, the Electoral College is indeed a ticking time bomb that needs to be addressed before it creates a genuine constitutional crisis.
Bayonet Constitution's Impact: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
Over 700 attempts to reform or abolish it
The Electoral College has been the subject of much debate and criticism since its establishment. There have been numerous attempts to reform or abolish it, with over 700 proposals introduced in Congress since 1800. Despite widespread acknowledgement of the potential risks the Electoral College poses to American democracy, none of these attempts have succeeded.
One of the closest attempts occurred during the 91st Congress (1969-1971). The 1968 presidential election highlighted a disparity between the popular vote and the electoral vote, with Richard Nixon receiving only 0.6% more of the popular vote than Hubert Humphrey, but 13.5% more electoral votes. In response, Representative Emanuel Celler introduced House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College with a simpler two-round system based on the national popular vote. The proposal passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 11-6, but faced strong opposition from senators and conservatives from small states, who argued that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence. Despite support from some senators, the proposal was filibustered and ultimately failed to pass before the end of the 91st Congress.
Another notable attempt to abolish the Electoral College was led by President Jimmy Carter, who wrote a letter to Congress in 1977 expressing his support for a constitutional amendment to provide for the direct popular election of the President. President Carter emphasised the importance of ensuring that the candidate chosen by the voters becomes President, acknowledging that under the Electoral College system, this may not always be the case.
More recently, in 2016, Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a proposal to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President. This proposal was accompanied by a similar resolution introduced by Representative Steve Cohen in the House of Representatives in 2017. These resolutions, along with other similar joint resolutions, failed to pass during the 111th Congress.
While a constitutional amendment is the typical route to abolishing the Electoral College, it is not the only option. An interstate compact proposal, which would bypass the need for a constitutional amendment, has gained significant traction and is close to completion as of March 2025. Additionally, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) provides an alternative approach by allowing states to determine how they award their electoral votes.
Schenck v US: The Espionage Act and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Constitutional amendment is not the only means to remove it
The Electoral College has been a topic of debate for decades, with over 700 attempts to reform or abolish it. While it is generally agreed that the Electoral College is a "ticking time bomb" that could seriously harm American democracy, none of these attempts have been successful. This is because any change is rooted in the politics of the day, and while Democrats tend to support change, Republicans tend to oppose it.
A constitutional amendment is one way to abolish the Electoral College, but it is not the only means. Amending the Constitution is a laborious process that requires significant consensus, including a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Given the current political environment, it is unlikely that such an amendment would pass.
An alternative approach is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This system capitalizes on the constitutional guarantee that states are free to determine how they award their electoral votes. While the NPVIC currently falls short of its goal, it offers a potential solution that does not require a constitutional amendment. However, it faces challenges, such as the lack of legal repercussions for state electors who defect from the national popular vote.
Another possibility is for states to award their votes based on the national popular vote. If enough states chose to do so, the Electoral College would become obsolete, as it would have no real power or purpose. This approach does not require a constitutional amendment and could be achieved through individual state laws.
In conclusion, while a constitutional amendment is one option for abolishing the Electoral College, it is not the only means. Alternative approaches, such as the NPVIC or individual state actions, offer potential solutions that do not require amending the Constitution.
Doctors, LGBTQ Patients, and the Law
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)
The NPVIC aims to address the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral vote, as seen in the 2000 US presidential election, where Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush. This compact provides a path to implementing a national popular vote without requiring a constitutional amendment. It leverages the states' power to determine how they allocate their electoral votes, as granted by the US Constitution (Article II).
Under the NPVIC, states agree to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, ensuring that the candidate with the most votes nationwide secures enough Electoral College votes to become President. This agreement will only come into effect when enough states join to control a majority of the Electoral College (270 votes). This strategy was proposed by law professors Robert W. Bennett, Akhil Amar, and Vikram Amar, who are considered the "intellectual godparents" of the NPVIC.
The compact has sparked debate about its constitutionality, with legal discussions focusing on interpretations of the Compact Clause of Article I, Section X, and states' plenary power under the Elections Clause of Article II, Section I. Supporters of the NPVIC argue that it would encourage presidential candidates to campaign in more states and provide a more democratic alternative to the current system. However, opponents argue that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.
The NPVIC has gained traction through organizations like National Popular Vote Inc. (NPV, Inc.), which published educational materials and encouraged citizens to petition their state legislators to pass the compact. States like Colorado, Virginia, and Maine have passed legislation to join the NPVIC, while other states like Nevada, Michigan, and North Carolina are considering similar measures.
The Power of Impeachment: Passage Inspiration
You may want to see also
The difficulty of amending the Constitution
The United States Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend. Article V sets out the process for amending the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of US states. This high threshold for change has resulted in only 17 amendments to the Constitution in over 200 years.
The Electoral College has been a source of controversy in the US, with over 700 attempts to reform or abolish it. The Electoral College has come under scrutiny as it has allowed for the election of presidential candidates who lost the popular vote, most recently in 2016. This has led to concerns that the Electoral College could undermine public confidence in American democracy. Despite this, and the fact that polls show a majority of Americans support a direct popular vote, attempts to abolish the Electoral College via constitutional amendment have been unsuccessful.
This is due in part to partisan politics. The current system benefits Republicans, and so Republicans and Republican-controlled state governments are incentivized to maintain the status quo. Democrats, on the other hand, generally support a move to direct popular voting. This partisan divide makes achieving the required supermajorities in Congress and among state legislatures difficult.
While amending the Constitution is challenging, it is not the only way to implement an alternative to the Electoral College. One popular alternative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This system would award a state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states join the compact, it would effectively render the Electoral College obsolete without the need for a constitutional amendment.
Who is Protected by the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Electoral College is a method of electing the president and vice president of the United States. It is made up of 538 electors who cast votes to decide the winner of a presidential election. The Electoral College system currently benefits Republicans, as two Republican presidents in the last 20 years have been elected despite losing the popular vote.
There have been over 700 attempts to reform or abolish the Electoral College. People who want to remove it argue that it could seriously erode American democracy and that it is a "ticking time bomb".
As the Electoral College is established in the Constitution, it would require a constitutional amendment to remove it. This would be a difficult process, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, followed by the ratification of three-quarters of the states.
Yes, there have been several attempts to remove the Electoral College. In 1969, 30 state legislatures were in favour of a constitutional amendment to abolish it. In 1970, a motion for cloture received 54 votes for and 36 against, failing to receive the required two-thirds of senators voting. Another attempt was made in 2005 by US Representative Gene Green, who introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
