[Previous entry: ""] [Main Index] [Next entry: ""]

10/22/2004 Archived Entry: "Electoral Colleges"

Gordon P. picks up on a conversation that Brad, he, and I had in person while Gordon was visiting our farm a few weeks back. I emerged from my workroom in confusion. I thought I understood the whole electoral college process but a news story -- half-heard in the background as I worked -- reported on a state splitting its electoral college votes proportional to the popular vote rather than "winner takes all." That knocked my concept out of its framework and I confessed utter ignorance to both Brad and Gordon, asking them to treat me like a "foreigner" and explain electoral colleges to me. Comes to pass that I did understand the process with one caveat: two states stray from the norm in how they allocate votes.

Gordon P. writes, You'd asked while I was visiting about the Electoral College, how it was selected, and how their votes were allocated; this webpage discusses it, as well as various concerns about the system. Apparently, the Electors themselves are either nominated by the state's political parties, or at the various party conventions (which is something I had never heard before, and which for some reason it has never occurred to me to ask about); here is the breakdown.

The Electors in all states except Maine and Nebraska are supposed to vote "Winner Takes All;" however, in Maine since 1972, and Nebraska since 1996, there are instead two "statewide" Electors who are supposed to vote for the candidates that carried the entire state, while the remaining electors are supposed to vote for the candidates that carried their Congressional District. The 23rd Amendment granted Washington D.C. Electors, and currently it gets 3 Electoral Votes, "Winner Take All."

While the Electors are _expected_ to vote for the candidate they declared themselves to be for, only 29 states _require_ the Electors to do so --- again, see the preceeding table for a state-by-state breakdown --- and even in most of these states, there is little to no penalty for going against the popular vote. In the other 21, the Electors are not bound to vote for _any_ particular candidate; I don't know if they are even bound to vote for someone who appeared on the actual ballot!. I also don't know if the Electors cast "secret" ballots or not; if the ballots are "secret," then in principle there would be no way for a specific Elector to be held to their declared vote; however, it does not appear likely that most Electoral Votes are "secret," since according to this site 156 Electors have been known to have been "faithless" --- i.e., to have cast their vote for a candidate who did not carry their state.

A quirk that I'd not noticed before is that if there is a tie in the Electoral College, _or if a third-party candidate carried a state such that neither "mainstream" party can achieve a majority in the College_, the President is selected by the House, and the Vice President by the Senate. Hence, if the House and Senate are controlled by opposing parties, it is _still_ in principle possible that a third party candidate could force the Pres and VP to be from opposing parties... A final quirk that I'd not noticed before is that the Constitution requires that _at least one of the two candidates an Elector votes for must be from another state_; hence, in the unlikely event that both candidates from a given party came from the same state, and won in that state, that state's electors would apparently _not be allowed to vote_...