Federalism and the Electoral College

This chapter examines federalism as it relates to the Electoral College. While the Framers sought to create a system safeguarding federalism, they also wanted a process that yielded a leader who could command supermajorities across the country. The Electoral College process has become increasingly democratized, as have many other features in American politics. The emergence of political parties has emphasized differences based on ideology rather than one’s location. Moreover, the protections afforded to less populated states by the Electoral College are largely exaggerated due to the attention given to swing states. Candidates limit their resources to a handful of states and rarely visit most states, including both the most populated and least populated states. This suggests the failure of the Electoral College to (1) produce campaigns appealing to smaller states and (2) produce candidates with broad national appeal.

Reform Efforts and Thoughts on the Electoral College

This chapter evaluates how the Electoral College performs relative to norms associated with representation. While Electoral College practices have changed considerably, many arguments applied to the body rely on original expectations of the institution. This study reveals that the Electoral College performs poorly along many dimensions associated with norms of representation. Not surprisingly, many reforms have been proposed to the body. These include making electoral votes automatic, adopting some form of proportional representation to award electoral votes, and abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote. These reforms are discussed and evaluated relative to the criteria associated with norms of representation. Although the institution often fails to perform in many of the ways its proponents suggest, it has been resistant to change. Absent pressure from large numbers of citizens from across the political spectrum, wholesale change to the institution is unlikely to occur in the near future.

The Popular Vote and Misfires in the Electoral College

This chapter examines the relationship among the electoral vote, the popular vote, and legitimacy in presidential elections. The Framers sought a process that preserved federalism and yielded candidates with broad appeal across the country. Forty percent of all presidential contests can be classified as hairbreadth elections (decided by less than 75,000 votes). Twenty percent of all elections have been decided by just 10,000 votes. On six occasions, the candidate winning the popular vote failed to win the Electoral College vote. These so-called misfire elections have occurred in two of the last five campaigns and have the potential to occur with greater frequency given changing demographics. The divergence between the Electoral College vote and the popular vote represents a potential challenge to legitimacy for incoming presidents. Specific attention is devoted to how misfire elections may have affected the agenda of incoming presidents.

Theories of Representation

This chapter details applicable theories of representation relative to the Electoral College. It examines how representation has been operationalized over time, paying specific attention to Hannah Pitkin’s seminal work on the topic. Using her concepts of formalistic, descriptive, symbolic, and substantive representation provides a common framework to evaluate how the Electoral College performs relative to these standards. Edmund Burke’s distinction between delegate representation and trustee representation further aids the objective assessment of the Electoral College relative to expectations regarding representation. An examination of how electoral rules affect different dimensions of representation is undertaken in a comparative context. Analyzing how different nations use different electoral systems provides greater insight into what the Electoral College process emphasizes regarding representation. Acknowledging the importance and potential tension among popular sovereignty, federalism, and legitimacy is essential in evaluating the merits of the Electoral College.

Introduction

This chapter examines common arguments surrounding the Electoral College. Many of these arguments were present with the 2016 presidential election. The election marked the sixth time the popular vote winner did not win the Electoral College vote. It also witnessed the largest number of faithless votes for president in history. Lastly, it marked the second time in the last three elections that a state split its electoral vote total. Each represents a common criticism of the institution. Proponents of the body suggested the institution worked as it should—especially in regard to protecting the interests of less populated states and supporting the two-party system. All arguments over the Electoral College ultimately relate to issues over representation. The chapter concludes by examining historical controversies relating to the Electoral College and several reform efforts aimed at the body.

Alexander Hamilton and the 2016 Election

This chapter examines the 2016 election through the lens of the Electoral College. The election represents the sixth time the popular vote winner did not win the Electoral College vote. It also represents the most faithless votes cast for president in any presidential election, and it is the second time in the past three elections that a state split its electoral vote between presidential candidates. Particular attention is devoted to the so-called Hamilton elector movement that aimed to have electors select an alternative candidate to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. A survey of the 2016 Electoral College reveals that a record number of electors considered voting contrary to expectations, and most all electors were lobbied to do so. Electoral College lobbyists consisted of citizens throughout the country and members of the body itself. Reservations over elector discretion draws attention to the differences between the original Electoral College and the evolved body.

Presidential Electors as Agents of Representation

This chapter examines the office and evolution of presidential electors. It also provides an in-depth examination of those who have served as electors over the past two decades. The office changed considerably from its original conception to its current practice. Originally, it was expected that electors would select the president and vice president through debate and their own discernment. The emergence of political parties and the adoption of the winner-take-all system rendered this conception of electors as obsolete. Electors have come to be chosen not for their judgment but for their loyalty. To this point, electors who fail to vote as expected are deemed to be “faithless.” Although expectations of the office have changed, the Constitution has not, and electors continue to hold discretion. Surveys of electors reveal that many consider joining the ranks of the faithless and are often lobbied to do so.

The Founding and Evolution of the Electoral College

This chapter examines the formulation and evolution of the Electoral College. Determining how the chief executive would be selected was among the most difficult tasks facing the Framers. They sought to balance geographic interests with concerns over popular sovereignty and legitimacy. Delegates debated whether the president should be selected by the legislature, by popular vote, or by state legislatures. Consensus rather than political principle drove much of the deliberation regarding the presidential selection process. Once established, the Electoral College changed considerably in a short while. The emergence of political parties (and party tickets) necessitated the passage of the 12th Amendment. This also changed the role of electors from one of independence to one of obedience. The widespread use of the unit rule further altered how the Electoral College functioned. Recognizing whether one is discussing the original body or the evolved body is essential in order to properly debate the institution.