The Electoral College System (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes
The Electoral College System
Introduction: Origins of the Electoral College
The US president is not directly elected by the people, but rather by 538 electors who make up the Electoral College. This indirect election method is written into the Constitution and reflects the Founding Fathers' concerns about allowing a direct popular vote.
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the Founding Fathers had several worries:
- They feared that ordinary voters could not be trusted with such an important decision
- They recognised that before mass media and reliable transport, most voters would not know the presidential candidates
- No other country in the world directly elected its chief executive at that time
The Electoral College was designed as a compromise between having Congress choose the president and allowing a direct popular vote. It was intended to be broadly acceptable to all states rather than a perfectly crafted system. The lack of precision is evident in how states were left free to decide their own method of choosing electors, which remains true today.
How the Electoral College works
Allocation of Electoral College votes
Each state receives a number of Electoral College Votes (ECVs) equal to its total Congressional delegation:
Formula: State's ECVs = Number of House representatives + 2 senators
This means:
- Every state has a minimum of 3 ECVs (at least one House representative plus two senators)
- Small states like Alaska and Wyoming have exactly three ECVs
- Large states like California have many more ECVs (55 in 2020)
- Washington, DC also receives 3 ECVs
Total Electoral College size: 538 votes
- 435 House representatives
- 100 senators
- 3 for Washington, DC
A candidate needs 270 ECVs (a majority) to win the presidency.
Winner-takes-all system
Nearly all states use a winner-takes-all system. This means whichever candidate wins the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes, regardless of how close the result was.
Example: California's Winner-Takes-All System
If a candidate wins California by just one vote, they receive all 55 of California's electoral votes. Even if the margin is 50.1% to 49.9%, the winner takes all 55 ECVs and the losing candidate receives zero.
The congressional district method
Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that use a different system called the congressional district method:
- The winner of each congressional district receives one electoral vote
- The winner of the statewide popular vote receives the state's remaining two electoral votes
This system usually results in one candidate winning all the ECVs anyway, but occasionally produces split results:
Example: 2020 Split Electoral Votes
- Joe Biden won one electoral vote from Nebraska's 2nd congressional district
- Donald Trump won one electoral vote from Maine's 2nd congressional district
This demonstrates how the congressional district method can produce split results, unlike the winner-takes-all system used by 48 other states.
States are constitutionally free to award their ECVs proportionally, though none has yet chosen to do so.
Faithless electors
The electors are real people, not just numbers. They are chosen from loyal party members in each state. For example, Bill and Hillary Clinton served as two of New York's electors in 2020.
Faithless electors are electors who vote for someone other than the candidate they pledged to support. Although electors pledge to vote for their party's candidate, they can legally choose to vote for someone else.
Notable examples of faithless electors:
- In 2016, there were a record seven faithless electors
- Four Democrats in Washington state voted for others, including three for Republican Colin Powell and one for Indigenous American activist Faith Spotted Eagle
- There were no faithless electors in 2008, 2012 or 2020
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jnr observed in 1949 that electors "are like the appendix in the human body. While it does no good and ordinarily causes no trouble, it continually exposes the body to the danger of political peritonitis."
Supreme Court ruling (2020): The Supreme Court unanimously decided that states can punish members of the Electoral College who break their pledge to vote for their state's popular vote winner.
Problems with the Electoral College
Popular vote vs Electoral College discrepancies
The Electoral College can produce a winner who lost the national popular vote. This hasn't happened frequently, but when it does, it causes significant controversy:
- 1888: Last occurred before recent times
- 2000: Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush
- 2016: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump
All three occasions resulted in Republican victories, leading to accusations of partisan bias in the system.
Exaggeration of victory margins
The Electoral College often exaggerates the margin of victory compared to the popular vote:
Example: Reagan's 1984 Victory
In 1984, Ronald Reagan won just under 59% of the popular vote but over 97% of the Electoral College votes. This massive difference demonstrates how the Electoral College can create the appearance of landslide victories when the actual vote was much closer.
Close margins in key states
Electoral College results can depend on very small numbers of votes in a handful of states:
2020 example: Although Biden won the Electoral College clearly (306-232), this relied on narrow victories in several states. If Trump had won approximately:
- 67,000 more votes in Pennsylvania
- 25,000 more votes in Georgia
- 20,000 more votes in Wisconsin
Then Trump would have won the Electoral College 278-260 despite losing the popular vote by over 5.5 million votes.
This demonstrates how the Electoral College can hinge on extremely small vote margins in key states.
Focus on swing states
Because most states reliably vote for one party, presidential campaigns concentrate almost entirely on a small number of swing states (also called battleground states) like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. This means:
- Voters in safe states receive little attention
- Issues important to swing states dominate campaign discussion
- Candidates largely ignore states where the outcome is predictable
Barry Goldwater captured this strategy in 1964: "Go hunting where the ducks are." This philosophy explains why campaigns focus on competitive states rather than attempting nationwide appeal.
Small state overrepresentation
Smaller states are overrepresented compared to their population:
Example: California vs Wyoming
California has one electoral vote per 712,000 people, while Wyoming has one electoral vote per 195,000 people.
This means a voter in Wyoming has roughly 3.5 times more influence per person than a voter in California.
Potential for Electoral College deadlock
If no candidate wins a majority of Electoral College votes (270), the House of Representatives would choose the president and the Senate would choose the vice president. This last happened in 1824.
For this to occur, a third-party candidate would need to win some ECVs. The last time a third-party candidate won any ECVs was 1968, when segregationist George Wallace won five Deep South states and 46 ECVs.
The debate: Should the Electoral College be abolished?
Arguments for keeping the Electoral College
It usually delivers the correct result The Electoral College normally elects the popular vote winner. Reform only becomes a major issue when the system produces a "rogue result" (2000, 2016). These occasions are relatively rare across American electoral history.
It reflects American federalism The Electoral College ensures candidates must campaign across multiple states, not just the most populated areas. This respects the federal nature of the USA where states retain significant autonomy.
No superior alternative has gained support All proposed alternatives have their own problems. There is no widespread, bipartisan consensus on what should replace the Electoral College.
It prevents urban-only campaigning A nationwide popular vote would encourage candidates to focus exclusively on large cities and urban areas. As Barry Goldwater said in 1964: "Go hunting where the ducks are."
Faithless electors have never changed an outcome Although faithless electors are theoretically problematic, they have never actually affected the result of a presidential election. States can also pass laws requiring electors to vote for their pledged candidate.
It produces a clear winner The Electoral College ensures a definitive result. The presidency cannot be shared proportionally. There is no risk of a runoff election or a complex national recount. When there was controversy in 2000, the recount was confined to Florida alone.
It brings all states into play Even smaller states receive attention under the Electoral College system. Donald Trump tweeted in 2016: "The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!"
Arguments for abolishing the Electoral College
Popular vote winners can lose The system has elected the popular vote loser on three occasions: 1888, 2000 (Al Gore) and 2016 (Hillary Clinton). This fundamentally undermines democratic principles.
It exaggerates victory margins The Electoral College distorts the true level of support for candidates, creating the appearance of landslide victories when the popular vote was much closer.
Small states are overrepresented The system gives disproportionate power to voters in small states, violating the principle of "one person, one vote."
It's outdated The Electoral College was created in a very different era when the USA was much smaller and less diverse. The Founding Fathers' original concerns no longer apply in the age of mass media and instant communication.
Campaigns focus on swing states only Rather than campaigning nationwide, candidates concentrate on a handful of competitive states like Florida and Ohio, ignoring the vast majority of voters.
Faithless electors pose a risk The number of faithless electors is growing (seven in 2016 was a record). This creates unnecessary risk in the democratic process. As Trump tweeted in 2012: "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
It depresses turnout Many votes are "wasted" in safe states, discouraging people from voting. This particularly affects third-party supporters.
Most Americans want change A Gallup poll in September 2020 showed that 61% of Americans supported abolishing the Electoral College in favour of a direct popular vote.
It discriminates against third parties The winner-takes-all system makes it nearly impossible for third-party or independent candidates to win any ECVs, further entrenching the two-party system.
Why has the Electoral College not been abolished?
Despite persistent criticism, the Electoral College remains in place for two main reasons:
Constitutional barriers
Constitutional amendment required
Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, which needs:
- Two-thirds supermajority in both houses of Congress
- Ratification by three-quarters of states (38 out of 50)
Small states would veto Smaller states benefit from the current system through overrepresentation. They would almost certainly veto any amendment that reduces their influence.
No consensus on alternatives
While several alternatives have been proposed, each has significant drawbacks:
Direct popular vote
- Advantage: Simple and democratic
- Disadvantages: Would encourage candidates to focus only on large urban centres; would undermine federalism; could require complex national recounts
Proportional allocation by state
- Advantage: Would eliminate wasted votes and reflect actual support
- Disadvantages: Would encourage third-party voting, undermining the two-party system; neither main party supports this as it threatens their vested interests
Nationwide congressional district method
- Advantage: Maintains some geographic distribution
- Disadvantages: Would incentivise more gerrymandering; ironically would have reduced Biden's 2020 margin to just 277-261
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
- States pledge to award their ECVs to the national popular vote winner
- By March 2021, 15 states plus DC (representing 196 ECVs or 36% of total) had signed
- Problem: No traditionally Republican states have signed; needs 270 ECVs to take effect
Reform vs abolition
It's important to distinguish between reform and abolition:
- Abolition requires a constitutional amendment
- Reform (such as changing how states allocate electors) can be done by individual states
- Maine and Nebraska demonstrate that reform is constitutionally possible without amendment
Key points about the Electoral College:
- The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (435 House + 100 Senate + 3 for DC) who formally elect the president
- Most states use winner-takes-all, but Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district method
- The system has produced three "rogue results" where the popular vote winner lost: 1888, 2000, and 2016 (all Republican victories)
- Faithless electors can vote against their pledge, but have never affected the outcome; the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that states can punish them
- Small states are overrepresented in the Electoral College compared to their population
- Abolition would require a constitutional amendment (two-thirds of Congress + three-quarters of states), which is extremely unlikely as smaller states would veto it
- The debate centres on federalism vs democracy: supporters argue it respects state autonomy; critics argue it's fundamentally undemocratic
- Various reforms have been proposed (direct popular vote, proportional allocation, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) but none has gained sufficient support