The Past, Present and Future of the U.S. Electoral College

Dejan Bursać

Abstract

Author aims to explain the institutional framework of the United States presidential election. One of the unique features of American political system is the Electoral College – an indirect mechanism of voting in which the citizens’ votes are aggregated and weighted in relation to their federal entity (i.e. fifty states and one federal district). Throughout the paper, author will not only present historical genesis and basic settings of this electoral mechanism, but also examine the effects and consequences of the system through history, including a number of controversies contributing to the rising criticism and frequent calls to reform. In that sense, the main arguments in favor and against the reform of Electoral College will also be analyzed. Finally, the paper will conclude with a brief examination of system’s effects on strategies of presidential candidates and voting results in the outcome of 2016 election.

References

1. Bialik, C. (2016) “Voter Turnout Fell, Especially In States That Clinton Won”, Five Thirty Eight [online]. Available at: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
2. Black, E. (2012) “Why the Constitution’s Framers didn’t want us to directly elect the president”, Minnpost [online]. Available at: https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/why-constitution-s-framers-didn-t-want-us-directly-elect-president [Accessed 19 December 2016].
3. Brams, S.J., Kilgour, D. M. (2016) “Paths to victory in presidential elections: the setup power of noncompetitive states”, Public Choice, Vol. 170, Issue 1, pp. 99–113.
4. Bromwich, J. E. (2016) “How Does the Electoral College Work?”, New York Times [online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/how-does-the-electoral-college-work.html?_r=1 [Accessed 19 December 2016].
5. Collin, K. (2016) “The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it’s going to get worse.”, Washington Post [online]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/17/the-electoral-college-badly-distorts-the-vote-and-its-going-to-get-worse/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
6. Detrow, S. (2016) “Donald Trump Secures Electoral College Win, With Few Surprises”, NPR [online]. Available at: http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/506188169/donald-trump-poised-to-secure-electoral-college-win-with-few-surprises [Accessed 19 December 2016].
7. Farley, R. (2016) “Could the Electoral College elect Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump?”, USA Today [online]. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/11/16/fact-check-could-electoral-college-elect-hillary-clinton-instead-donald-trump/93951818/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
8. Frum, D. (2016) “The Great Republican Revolt”, The Atlantic [online]. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
9. Gregg, G. (2012) “Electoral College keeps elections fair”, Politico [online]. Available at: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/keep-electoral-college-for-fair-presidential-votes-084651 [Accessed 19 December 2016].
10. Hamilton, A. (2001) “The view of the constitution of the president continued, in relation to the mode of appointment”, The Federalist, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 351-355.
11. Katz, J. (2016) “Who Will Be President?”, New York Times [online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html [Accessed 19 December 2016].
12. Kirkland, A. (2016) “Political Pros See No Logic In Trump’s All-Over-The-Map Campaign Schedule”, TPM [online]. Available at: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/campaign-strategists-say-trump-packed-schedule-makes-no-sense [Accessed 19 December 2016].
13. Madison, J. (2001) “The conformity of the plan to republican principles: an objection in respect to the powers of the convention, examined”, The Federalist, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 193-199.
14. Madison, J. (2008) Transcript of Madison debates in the Federal Convention, Tuesday September 4, 1787 [online]. Available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_904.asp [Accessed 19 December 2016].
15. National Popular Vote (2016) “Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States” [online]. Available at: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 [Accessed 19 December 2016].
16. Neale, T. (2016) The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, Washington: Congressional Research Service.
17. Rutchick, A. M., Smyth J. M., Konrath, S. (2009) “Seeing Red (and Blue): Effects of Electoral College Depictions on Political Group Perception”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 269-282.
18. Sartori, Đ. (2003) Uporedni ustavni inženjering, Beograd: Filip Višnjić.
19. Silver, N. (2014) “Why a Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College Is Probably Doomed”, Five Thirty Eight [online]. Available at: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-a-plan-to-circumvent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
20. Silver, N. (2016) “The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing”, Five Thirty Eight [online]. Available at: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/ [Accessed 19 December 2016].
21. The Constitution of the United States (2011), Philadelphia: National Constitution Center.
22. United States Elections Project (2016) “2016 November General Election Turnout Rates” [online]. Available at: http://www.electproject.org/2016g [Accessed 19 December 2016].
23. United States Supreme Court (2000) Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98.
24. Williams, N. (2011) “Reforming the Electoral College: Federalism, Majoritarianism, and the Perils of Subconstitutional Change”, The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 100:173, pp. 173-236.