The Report : Electoral College

Electoral College (download pdf version)

The Center's examination of the Electoral College through the National Symposium on Presidential Selection has turned into a preemptive analysis of a topic that narrowly escaped the spotlight in 2000.

One of the most historically notable aspects of this election--the divergence between the popular vote and Electoral College outcome--has been remarked upon far less than one might expect. This relative oversight results from a variety of factors, such as a lack of strong feelings in favor of one candidate or the other. Above all, though, the media and citizenry's limited attention span was consumed by the goings on in Florida. This nation may have come a few dimpled, hanging, and pregnant chads away from a major new push to abolish or reform the Electoral College. While Florida brewed, both sides paid homage, or lip service, to our current constitutional system, and people gradually became accustomed to the notion that Florida's electors would be decisive, and that the popular vote does not choose the president. As a nation, we never really seized upon the opportunity to contemplate the Electoral College.

Without the Florida buffer, one of the most mysterious and consistently (albeit mildly) unpopular institutions of our presidential selection process could have been demagogued into public enemy number one. It is true that abolition or even reform efforts stand very little chance given the difficulty of amending the Constitution. However, one can easily imagine the right circumstances in a future election amplifying the steady anti-Electoral College hum into a deafening chorus. What if no controversy arose surrounding elections in particular states? What if the popular vote was more decisive than this year in favor of the Electoral College loser? What if one side or the other mounted a serious, and perhaps successful, campaign to steal away electors? What if more than one election within a few cycles turned out like this one? No matter what the impetus, this nation may in fact face a time when the political climate spawns a serious discussion of the Electoral College. For this reason, the Center has called for a meaningful, thoughtful analysis of this unusual, yet fundamental, aspect of our presidential selection process.

Background

Adopted in 1789, before the firm establishment of political parties or opinion polls and before most citizens had the right to vote, the Electoral College was established for a variety of reasons-some purely political, others based upon principle. A great deal of compromise produced a system designed to give all states a voice in the selection of the nation's leader. The men drafting the Constitution found it very difficult to believe that a national mandate, like that of George Washington, would be attainable for candidates in the future. Author Frederick D. Schwarz points out in American Heritage magazine that the Framers also intended for the Electoral College to serve as an intelligent gatekeeper, a "nominating committee" that would send the top vote-getters to the U.S. House for a final choice far away from the hoi polloi. Virginian George Mason, quoted in James Madison's notes, "conceived it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer a trial of colours to a blind man. The extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge."¹

Once instituted, it did not take long for the Electoral College to stir controversy. In 1796, John Adams edged out Thomas Jefferson by just three electoral votes. In 1800, Jefferson, the sitting vice president as a result of his second-place finish four years earlier, ran again, this time against incumbent President Adams. This time around, Jefferson and his ticket mate, Aaron Burr, came out on top in the Electoral College. At that time, each elector voted for two men, and the top two vote-getters would serve as president and vice president. The Jefferson electors had voted for both men, so Jefferson and Burr each had 73 of 138 electoral votes. While Burr had clearly been the choice for vice president and not president, his political ambition kept him from stepping aside. As things turned out, it took thirty-six ballots in the U.S. House of Representatives-with votes cast by state delegations, not by individual members-to select Thomas Jefferson as our third president. This fiasco prompted the Twelfth Amendment, which, among other provisions, requires electors to vote for presidential and vice presidential candidates separately. This marks the most significant change to the Electoral College. In the 1960s, the Twenty-Third Amendment granted three electoral votes to the District of Columbia. Others have followed, but they have primarily altered the timing of the electoral vote tabulation and the way in which individual states choose to allocate their electors.

In 1824, the College took center stage again, as four candidates received electoral votes, none a majority, leading to infamous backroom bargaining that sent John Quincy Adams (who had received fewer electoral votes than Andrew Jackson) to the presidency. In 1837, while the presidency was not contested, the Electoral College was unable to select a vice president, and the Senate was called upon to choose between the top two vote getters. In 1876, neither New York Governor Samuel Tilden nor Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes managed to secure the necessary number of electors, because the results in four states remained contested. Tilden's total stood at 184 undisputed votes, just one shy of the total needed at that time, and Hayes had 165. To resolve the dispute, a fifteen-member Electoral Commission (five members from the Republican Senate, five members from the Democratic House, and five from the Supreme Court) was convened. The Electoral Commission voted 8-7, along party lines, to give the electoral votes in each of the four disputed elections to the Republican Hayes, granting him the necessary 185 votes. Since that time, the College has also survived multi-party elections in 1912, 1924, 1948, 1968, and 1992, as well as extremely close elections in 1960 and 1976.

An examination of the intentions of the Constitutional Framers in establishing the Electoral College is quite useful for gaining historical context, something that deserves full consideration whenever reform is discussed. A great deal of literature exists and speculation abounds regarding both the origins and historical evolution of this institution. However, more important for the purposes of this report is what the Electoral College has become.

Speaking to the Symposium, former Massachusetts governor and 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis pointed to the Electoral College's origins in calling for its abolition. "Today, nobody in his right mind would ever suggest that we pick a president that way," Dukakis argued.² It is almost certainly true that an idea as convoluted as the Electoral College would be an unlikely result of any Constitutional Convention held today. In fact, a strong argument can be made that many of the initial intentions of those establishing the Electoral College were somewhat anti-democratic and that the College as it is applied today bears little resemblance, in some important ways, to the institution the Founding Fathers thought they were establishing. The Electoral College may not be exactly what the Founders expected, but that does not necessarily diminish the value of what it has become. Through a combination of foresight and good fortune, the Framers may very well have created, or simply stumbled upon, a system with many benefits.

Whatever one thinks of its origins, the Electoral College has become a fundamental component of our democratic system. Presidential campaigns base their strategies upon it, but its impact extends far beyond presidential politics. The Electoral College buttresses the two-party system, and has a profound impact on who participates in the national discourse. Should the nation ever seriously ponder altering or eliminating this system, it must carefully examine the true benefits and downsides of our current system versus the potential intended and unintended consequences of any reform proposals. Our report seeks to launch this discussion in an atmosphere divorced from the heat of the political moment, yet not impervious to political reality.

Advantages of the Electoral College as It Exists Today

The Electoral College has served as a stabilizing factor in American politics by limiting the emergence of multiple parties.

This benefit only exists because of the winner-take-all allocation of electors in all states but Maine and Nebraska, neither of which have ever split their votes. Many would dispute the classification of this as a benefit. However, the Center believes that forcing consensus and coalition building at the party level has protected our system against the fragmentation often seen in other nations. When multiple parties develop, they often do so along single-issue, ethnic, socioeconomic, religious, or regional lines. This could prove quite divisive, especially in a very heterogeneous nation such as this one. Also, when many small parties or factions participate independently in the process, majorities are very difficult to build, and small groups often attain disproportionate power, because they are the key to a coalition. If small parties were suddenly able to play a role in presidential politics, they would likely begin to see greater success at the local, state, and national levels, perhaps changing the face of our Congress and transforming the legislatures in all of the states.

Candidates are not able to run campaigns focused entirely on population centers.

Without the Electoral College, states like Wisconsin and Nevada would stand little chance of competing for attention with large cities like New York and Los Angeles, where candidates can shop for votes much more efficiently.

The Electoral College undergirds federalism and reinforces the role of states in our representative democracy.

The College defers power to states in one of the most important acts of our political process. Although the Electoral College is arguably a ceremonial body, which convenes at the end of an election after the president-elect has been known for some time, it symbolizes the integral role the fifty states play in our democracy. In the current system, all matters concerning elections, from setting a primary date to selecting electors, rest with the states. The College forces candidates to pay attention to all fifty states. It compels candidates to "pay more attention to local issues" and "wage a national campaign," said former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes at the Symposium.³

Problems with the Electoral College as It Exists Today

The winner of the popular vote does not necessarily win the presidency.

Some do not see this as a problem, while others feel it makes the Electoral College fundamentally undemocratic. Principle aside, this clearly represents the most significant and persistent public-relations problem for the College.

When it comes to the presidency, the votes of individuals in each state do not count equally.

The basis of the Electoral College (much like the foundation of the U.S. Senate) is a far cry from "one person, one vote." Many find this difficult to accept and, once again, essentially undemocratic. The Framers, of course, were not concerned with popular votes. They assigned the responsibility of allocating electoral votes to the state legislatures. Under our current system, individuals do not really vote for president;for one cand state electors do.

States that lean heavily to one party or another in general, or to one candidate or another in a particular race, do not feature prominently in a campaign.

This phenomenon often dictates which issues attract attention. This potentiality can also impact the enthusiasm of voters, who may believe that their vote is essentially already cast.

"Faithless Electors" can cast votes that do not correspond with the results of the election in their state.

This is historically rare and has never played a role in deciding an election. However, one can easily imagine a situation in which a group of such electors could significantly impact a close election. This prospect is especially troubling, considering that most voters do not even know the names of the electors they choose, let alone trust in their judgment to select the president. A few examples: a Washington, D.C., elector cast a blank ballot in 2000 to protest the lack of voting rights in the District of Columbia; a West Virginia elector once cast her ballot backwards, picking Lloyd Bentsen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president, a switched ticket to indicate her personal preference; and in 1969, a North Carolina man cast his vote for Alabama Governor George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon.

The College is susceptible to a tie.

There are numerous ways that the Electoral College can tie, and as trends across America show increasing regional differences in party voting, it is indeed likely that a tie will occur. In that case, the House would select the President, which most Americans would probably find an unpalatable way to choose our chief executive. Although there is no way to say for sure how the representatives would vote, one would have to assume that the selection of the president would rest in the hands of whichever party controls the House of Representatives. This is not a clear-cut weakness of the Electoral College. The Framers would likely have seen nothing wrong with a tied College vote being sent to the House.

Reform Approaches that "End It"

Many groups and individuals, including the League of Women Voters, John Anderson, and Michael Dukakis, believe strongly that the Electoral College should be abolished altogether, in favor of a direct popular vote. Polls since the 1970s consistently show approximately 60 percent of Americans agree with this assessment.⁴

At first glance, the notion of switching to a direct popular vote for president certainly seems to address the problems associated with the Electoral College. Most people would find it implicitly more democratic-all voters would know that their vote was counted equally-and the notion of "faithless electors" would be soon forgotten. Former ten-term congressman and independent presidential candidate John Anderson, who serves as president of the Center for Voting and Democracy, argues that the American presidency "is the one national office for which all the American people ought to be involved and select. And they ought to do it on the basis where their votes are weighted equally. The Electoral College is not this fundamental pedestal that is holding up the whole federal system."⁵

Perhaps Anderson is correct in his assessment that a direct vote for president would not entirely alter the political balance in this country. However, defenders of the Electoral College believe abolishing the system would, in fact, lead to a great deal of fundamental, and unpredictable, change in our political system. Speaking to the Symposium, Brown University's Darrell West made what is perhaps the most common case in favor of the status quo: "If we got rid of the Electoral College and moved to direct popular voting, it would clearly change the strategic arena of presidential campaigns. It would lead to a much greater emphasis than what is currently the case on large states, because candidates would go where the votes are … And certainly the current system represents a very careful balance between small, medium, and large states. I think that is very important for our country. It is one of the reasons we have survived 200-plus years now."⁶ Candidates would be inclined to run "tarmac" campaigns, going from population center to population center and focusing advertising dollars on large cities with many voters, virtually ignoring vast swaths of the nation where there are few voters. This would tend to favor candidates with appeal in urban areas and would force all campaigns to cater their message to urban and suburban voters.

Chuck Todd, editor of The Hotline, notes that given the current breakdown of the electorate, a direct vote will also exacerbate the urban/rural split between Republicans and Democrats: "Where is Al Gore going to campaign? New York City, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco. And where is George Bush going to campaign? In the center of the country and in the West."⁷

Anderson does not believe eliminating the Electoral College would alter the balance between large and small states, since that balance is preserved in other institutions. "The states are protected by having two senators," Anderson noted. "Cheek by jowl sit Nevada and California. They [senators] are not in danger of disappearing."⁸ While senators would still be in place to make the case for issues impacting the smaller, less-populous states, much of our national policy discourse is still dictated by presidential politics.

However, despite Anderson's sentiment, and the fact that a direct popular vote would address many of the weaknesses of the current system, there are many potential problems associated with this reform approach. For starters, since it would require a constitutional amendment, it has very little chance of succeeding, especially given that the amendment methods are weighted among the states in almost the same disproportion as the distribution of electoral votes. Beyond this prohibitive obstacle, there are a number of practical and philosophical reasons to caution against a direct vote.

Strong arguments also exist that a direct popular vote would have one critical consequence that could drastically alter the way our democracy works. "The thing that I fear the most about moving to direct popular voting for president is the way in which it would fundamentally alter the nature of presidential elections," West said. "I think it would lead to basically a multi-party system. … I think we would end up with at least seven or eight presidential candidates on the general election ballot."⁹

Given this likelihood, any system of direct popular vote would require provisions choosing among multiple candidates. Many systems have been proposed, but, as is usually the case with such vast systemic changes, the devil can be in the details.

• Direct Popular Vote- In this case, the ticket with the highest vote total wins the election, no matter how small the percentage. This system would rarely establish a mandate for the winning candidate. It is very likely that third-party and extreme candidates with solid, dedicated bases, would have more success with direct popular voting, even though they may not share the views of the general public.
• Popular Vote with Congressional Fallback- If no candidate receives more than a certain, preset percentage of the vote, the election is thrown to the House, Senate, or Joint Session, where the members would choose from among the top candidates. Oddly, this would probably result in a situation very similar to what the Framers envisioned for the Electoral College: except for the rare instance when one candidate managed to secure a national following, the president would be selected in Congress.
• Popular Vote with Runoff- The top vote-getters in the general election are included in a runoff a few weeks later. It is difficult to determine how many candidates to include in such a runoff. Depending upon the dynamics of the particular election, and the number of candidates running, this could lead to a runoff between two or three tickets, none of which have broad popular appeal. On a more practical level, the costs associated with this are high, and voter turnout in runoffs tends to decline from the general election.
• Popular Vote with Instant Runoff- Each voter ranks several choices for president. You eliminate candidates based upon first choices. In the case of ballots listing a defeated candidate as first choice, the vote will be cast for the citizen's second, third, and fourth choice, and so on. This allows election officials to conduct a runoff election without the voter returning to the polls and without delay. Like the simple runoff option, this approach also allows the election of candidates who lack broad appeal. Also, the logistical problems associated with filling out very complex ballots would undoubtedly cause nightmares.
• Ranked Popular Vote- Each voter ranks the candidates, similar to an instant runoff, except all the votes are counted immediately, with candidates receiving more votes for higher rankings and fewer votes for lower rankings. This would create perhaps the most complicated ballots among the various popular vote options.
• Yes Vote- Each voter simply votes yes for all candidates they find acceptable, and the candidate with the most total yes votes wins. It is difficult to tell exactly how this might play out with multiple candidates. This may lead to candidates winning about whom very few voters had any strong positive or negative feelings. Again, the complexity of tabulating the ballots is daunting, especially given the level of available voting technology for the foreseeable future.

All of these systems for dealing with multiple candidates would make it very difficult for any president to enjoy a truly broad popular mandate. The most significant impact, though, could come in the fragmentation of the electorate. Where voters today identify themselves, for the most part, as Democrats, Independents, or Republicans, party affiliations under a direct vote could break down on the basis of demographic associations such as race, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation, geography, socioeconomic status, and age. Furthermore, in a system that removes the power of dominant parties to build an electoral consensus, it becomes more and more appealing to use fame and fortune to do so. Todd predicts that the candidate who "emerges as the top one or two [will be] either someone with a famous name or someone with a lot of money. If you thought that this system of fundraising and campaign spending was obnoxious," Todd concludes, "it would be that and then some" if the Electoral College were abolished.¹⁰

Reform Approaches that "Mend It"

Some political experts believe the Electoral College should not be abolished wholesale, but that we should tinker with components of it so as to both improve the College and, hopefully, make it less vulnerable to public opinion. These "mend it, don't end it" proposals could become potential compromise solutions should popular sentiment ever build strongly against the current system. It is essential to analyze their likely impact, especially since some of these changes have more significant chances of being implemented.

• Eliminate "Faithless Electors"- In the course of his remarks to the Symposium, Todd called for one of the more commonly proposed Electoral College reforms: "If we at least dehumanize it so that if you win Florida, you get twenty-five …the electors are just these elements or figurines or whatever you want to call them. But, they are not actual human beings that are liable to all sorts of shenanigans that people were speculating about during the whole Florida mess."¹¹ While faithless electors have not previously posed a serious threat to the electoral process, just one could throw a wrench into the machinery in a close election. Sabato and other experts have suggested a possible improvement to this reform option that preserves the benefits of dehumanizing the electors, while maintaining the party building advantages of human electors: Make the position of elector a strictly honorary one. The political parties can still offer these posts to their staunchest members, but the individuals need not make a trek to the statehouse (except perhaps for some sort of ceremony), and they will not have the ability to cast an actual vote. One obstacle in this idea's way is the fact that it requires a constitutional amendment, but this proposal would create much less controversy than other reforms. But unless a significant problem arises in a future election, it is difficult to imagine enough popular concern arising over "faithless electors" to push forward a change to the Constitution. Nonetheless, if a zest for reform ever takes hold, this idea should be strongly considered.
• Congressional District Allocation- This is another fairly common and popular reform proposal, and it applies the current distribution process in Maine and Nebraska nationally. Electors would be apportioned according to congressional districts, with the two extra votes going to the statewide winner. Todd favors spreading the Maine-Nebraska paradigm in this way. He argues such a change would alleviate a major problem with a popular-vote scheme: the loss of political and electoral power by small, under-populated states. Todd points out that there are thirty to sixty swing congressional districts from coast to coast that could go for either party. "All but about seven to ten states have a swing congressional district," Todd says, "which means you would get what you want if you had a direct popular vote. ... You would get Al Gore campaigning in Kansas. ... George W. Bush would have campaigned in Long Island. ... You expand the playing field."¹² Interestingly, an earlier version of the Twelfth Amendment, which barely failed ratification, called for electors to be allocated by "electoral districts."

The congressional district method of assigning electors has several benefits. One appealing, though not particularly significant, benefit is that it would make it next to impossible for the television networks and the Voter News Service to design and fund exit polls, which became the source of such controversy and finger pointing on Election Night 2000. This approach could technically become the standard without a constitutional amendment. All of the states could voluntarily assign their electors this way, although the larger states have no interest in diluting the impact of their votes by doing so. One benefit discussed by Todd is the increased scrutiny such a plan would have on the redistricting process each decade. This, however, is at best a mixed bag. More national attention does not necessarily translate into better districts.

Overall, this plan may create more problems than it solves. The impact it would have had on previous elections is mixed. Would Gore supporters who blame the Electoral College system jump for joy if electors were counted by congressional district? Hardly. A study by independent analyst Rhodes Cook found the winner to be ... George W. Bush … with a clear-cut 288 to 250 Electoral College win. The distribution of Republican votes helped Bush because it is spread throughout the country. Gore, for example, won all twenty-two Illinois electors. But under the district plan, Bush would have picked up nine of those twenty-two votes.¹³ Richard Nixon would have won the 1960 presidential election if the electoral votes were allotted under this plan.¹⁴ More importantly, this plan could alter the future dynamics of our political system in unexpected ways. Lowering the winner-take-all bar from the state level to the congressional district level might allow more parties to win electoral votes. Should this happen, the nation might be faced with the two major candidates engaged in post-election pandering to smaller parties in order to secure the minimum number of electoral votes. Also, imagine the Florida-type disputes that would arise in a close race as campaigns jockey for individual electoral votes by contesting tallies district by district.

• Proportional Allocation- This proposal would have each state's electoral votes divided in the same proportion as that state's popular vote. This method of distributing electors presents a few benefits, but those are tempered by some significant drawbacks. Depending upon the exact method of implementation, this plan could have the effect of forcing candidates to campaign in places they currently ignore. It would certainly make decisions by the campaigns about where to stump much more complex. Unlike allocation by congressional district, this option could also boost voter enthusiasm, even in areas that lean heavily toward one party. Overall, however, this approach is even more problematic than the congressional district method. This, too, could possibly be applied without amending the Constitution, but that prospect is actually quite troublesome. Even just a few smaller states choosing this route might lead to something resembling a parliamentary system. Multiple parties could get into the mix by garnering even just a handful of electors. In elections without a majority winner, the College would then either come to some consensus (though never convening), or send the election to the House of Representatives. On a more practical note, rounding errors produced by converting popular-vote percentages into smaller electoral-vote totals could cause significant problems in such a system. (How are three votes split in an election where both candidates get close to 50 percent, or in an election with multiple candidates?) The rounding problem could be remedied somewhat by increasing each state's number of electors by some factor (ten, for example), but that would require a constitutional amendment.
• Electoral College with Super Electors- Under this system, candidates would continue to compete for electors on a state-by-state, winner-take-all basis, but the winner of the national popular vote would be awarded a set of bonus electors. Center Chief of Staff Alex Theodoridis advocated this plan during the Symposium. Harvard Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., had previously proposed this reform in a series of editorials published in the wake of the 2000 elections. Schlesinger suggested that 102 electors go to the general election winner-two for each state and the District of Columbia. "The number Schlesinger proposed is almost certainly too high," Theodoridis said.¹⁵ "This sort of scheme can only work if the number is low enough to still give the traditional Electoral College framework some meaning, but large enough to make it unlikely that the national popular-vote winner would lose after claiming the Super Electors." Indeed, with the right number, this approach could force campaigns to focus both on battleground or swing states (in order to secure valuable electoral votes), while staying focused on their own strongholds (to boost their national-vote totals). And, even if voters do not see the impact of their votes in their own state, they might be more inclined to participate so as to impact the national totals. The difficulty of coming up with the right number is, of course, a major weakness of this proposal, as is the necessity of a constitutional amendment.
• Electoral College Redistribution or Addition- Center Director Larry Sabato has proposed a redistribution of Electoral College votes among the states that more closely reflects actual population (see chart). In addition to the 538 electoral votes distributed among the nation's fifty states and the District of Columbia, this proposal gives states additional electoral votes based on their percentage of the national population.

Based upon Sabato's plan, states are allotted one additional electoral vote for falling between 0.5 to 2.0 percent of the nation's population. One electoral vote will also be given for each additional percentage point after 2.0. For instance, Alabama has 1.6 percent of the nation's population. Since it falls between 0.5 and 2.0 percent, the state will be allotted one more electoral vote. Michigan boasts 3.5 percent of the national population, so it will get 3 additional electoral votes.

It is imperative that the amendment include a provision making electors honorary, since increasing the number of electors would multiply the risk of faithless electors. Although it would require a constitutional amendment and would probably face objection from the smallest states, this sort of plan might serve as a strong compromise in the face of any major abolition movement. This is the only option that specifically addresses, although not fully, the issue of votes by citizens in different states counting unequally. (This is, of course a problem that will always exist to some extent, as long as our elections are conducted via the Electoral College on the state level. No preset allocation of electors can predict voter turnout gradients from one state to the next in a given year.) This plan also decreases the chance, while not eliminating the possibility, that the Electoral College vote will contradict the popular-vote result. It allows the Electoral College to more closely reflect the popular vote. For example, in the 2000 election, Sabato's system would have more accurately reflected the closeness of the national contest. Assuming Florida is counted in Bush's column, the revised Electoral College sends the election to the House of Representatives with a 307-307 tie. The main obstacle to passing a plan of this sort would probably be the bickering between states for an exact formula satisfactory to them when adding electors. However, this plan as proposed stands perhaps the best chance of ratification, as it provides a direct benefit to 40 states, and ratification requires 38. The proposal offers these 40 states an enhanced sense of importance and a renewed sense of political efficacy and vitality. Citizens in larger states would enjoy an added sense of proportional representation.

Conclusion

The Electoral College has proven to be an enduring, yet unloved, feature of our democratic process. Though many think of it as nothing more than an election-night anachronism, it has survived numerous controversial and close elections, as well as a number of attempts to alter or discard it. Having apparently endured the 2000 elections intact, there is nothing to suggest this institution faces any jeopardy in the near future. However, as reform proposals are tossed around and as future circumstances may further challenge the College, lawmakers should avoid drastic change without intelligently considering the long-term consequences. For the time being, the Center recommends only that lawmakers consider making electors entirely honorary, with no actual ability to cast a vote. This may help protect the Electoral College from the problem of "faithless electors" deciding a close election, something that could have occurred in 2000. Furthermore, the Center hopes that the nation, and especially those who study and maintain our political process, will begin to discuss some creative reform options that can improve our current system and preempt future challenges. America should not leave decisions regarding something as fundamental as the Electoral College for a moment of crisis.

_______________

Notes

1. Fredrick Schwarz, "How It Got that Way and Why We're Stuck With It," American Heritage, February-March 2001.

2. Michael Dukakis, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. April 5, 2001.

3. Steve Forbes, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. February 20, 2001.

4. In "Gallup Poll's Analyses" on January 5, 2001, Frank Newport discussed the public's view of the Electoral College. "One of the earliest times in which the public was asked about the Electoral College system was June 1944, jut before Franklin Roosevelt's re-election to his forth term. A Gallup Poll question asked, 'It has been suggested that the electoral vote system be discontinued and presidents of the U.S. be elected by total popular vote alone. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?' The answer: 65 percent of Americans said they favored the proposal, with 23 percent saying they opposed it, and another 13 percent saying they had no opinion." For more information, see "American Support to Eliminate Electoral College System," January 5, 2001. http://gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010105.asp.

5. John Anderson, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 26, 2001.

6. Darrell West, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 26, 2001.

7. Chuck Todd, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 26, 2001.

8. Anderson.

9. West.

10. Todd.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Rhodes Cook, "This Just In: Nixon Beats Kennedy," The Rhodes Cook Letter, May 2001.

14. Rhodes Cook discusses the results of close elections in the past in "Electoral Reform: If the Electoral Vote was by Congressional District?" in the March 2001 issue of The Rhodes Cook Letter. He writes: "The election that would have been reversed was the razor-tight contest in 1960 between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard M. Nixon Kennedy's 118, 574-vote edge in the popular vote was magnified into a comfortable 303-219 triumph in the Electoral College. But employing the district plan-which gives two electoral votes in each state to the statewide winner and one electoral vote for each congressional district carried-Nixon would have won 280 to 252."

15. Alex Theodoridis, interview with Joshua Scott, November 22, 2001.

(c) 2001, University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies.