Talk:Electoral College (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Electoral College (United States) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 24, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted February 9, 2005 Featured article review Kept July 18, 2006 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

---

See also: Talk:Electoral college

Archives

Contents 1 Contradiction in Article 2 Split 3 "Death or unsuitability of candidates" 4 "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act" 5 "Original plan" expansion 6 Restructuring and revising 7 Pro-Conservative Bias 8 "Bayh-Celler" Amendment 9 Quasi-Parliamentary System 10 Congressional District Method 11 Proposed Legislation 12 Way too much detail on alternatives 13 Do Electors appear on any state ballots? 14 Are the certificates for the electoral vote a public record 15 The Image of Certificate for the electoral Vote was remove from Wikimedia Commons 16 To capitalize or not to capitalize 17 Merger of cite tags 18 Role of Slavery in Origin of Electoral College 19 Speculation removed 20 Introduction way too long 21 Table? 22 Electoral College mechanics 23 Proposed new Introduction

[edit] Contradiction in Article

Quote: "Of course, some winner-take-all approach is ultimately unavoidable in an election for an office to be filled by a single person. The states do not have to allocate votes on a winner-take-all approach, however. Therefore a winner-take-all approach is avoidable in an election for an office to be filled by a single person."

I guess what is meant by the first sentence is that in the end only one person can "take all" of the office, and the last sentence means that the statewide elections don't have to be winner-take-all. This doesn't contradict, but the paragraph as written contains contradiction. Please correct this if you can, I fail to think of a good way to put this. -- 212.63.43.180 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the argument in the first place. Considering all states vote on the same day, I don't see how it matters whether a third party starts as a "regional" phenomenon. Maybe Ralph Nader would be able to say in 2004 that he had some electoral votes in 2000, but that wouldn't be a regional issue. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks a bit like someone made this up. Plinkit (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Death or unsuitability of candidates"

I have removed this section from the article and inserted some of the relevant text in the "faithless elector" section. This was previously one of the "arguments in favor", but, as the section itself noted, the 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act obviate this argument. Succession is provided for even under a popular vote system. Vidor (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The 25th Amend. and 1947 Act cover the period after the electors vote in December, not the period between the convention and the electors vote in December. Whoever added the 4th paragraph of that section got it wrong - two different time periods are being confused here. Thus the "argument" is not obviated. I restored it and removed the incorrect paragraph. NoSeptember 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The time between the voting of the Electors and 11:59 AM of Inauguration Day is covered by Section 3 (and to a lesser extent by Section 4) of the 20th Amendment.--SMP0328. (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, and here is why: the period between Election Day and Electoral College Day is irrelevant. Nor is the death of a candidate relevant. Electors are free agents. They are free agents whether or not their candidate is alive or dead. To put it another way: under the terms of the 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act, if there is no POTUS nor VPOTUS by Inauguration Day, then the Speaker of the House becomes POTUS. It matters not when the incoming POTUS and VPOTUS are disqualified: succession is provided for, in all cases. The only difference is that if an incoming POTUS and/or VPOTUS were to croak in the six weeks between Election Day and Electoral College Day, the Electoral College itself would be able to pick the new President, and could pick anyone, whereas if the POTUS/VPOTUS died or were disqualified between Electoral College Day and Inauguration Day, the Congress would effectively choose the incoming POTUS when it elected a Speaker of the House. Conversely, the only difference if we scrapped the Electoral College would be that the new Speaker of the House would be assured of becoming President regardless of when the incoming POTUS/VPOTUS died or were disqualified. The Electoral College in no way makes the succession to the Presidency clearer. It actually makes it much less clear, as the EC would be able to vote for whoever they chose. (As, in fact, they are already free to do, for the most part.) I am thus going to change the article back to what I changed it to before, and it should stay that way unless someone can construct any scenario where the Electoral College provides for a more certain succession. Vidor (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those free agents you speak of can make a free choice of how to respond to an unexpected death, and do so as late as mid-december. A system without free agents does not have that flexibility extended to such a late date. This section of the article is for arguments for the EC, flexibility of party selected free agents to act as late as mid-December to avoid an automatic succession proscribed by law is a valid argument. Avoiding the succession of the speaker, who was never put in that office with the idea that they would become President, while allowing the selection of a desirable replacement by party selected free agents, is a valid argument in favor of the EC. Making the succession clear is not part of the argument, flexibility of electors is the issue. Perhaps a "clear succession" argument could be added to the arguments against the EC, but this argument is part of the pro-EC section, and it has nothing to do with the later period when the 25th amendment and Succ. Act kick in (post mid-december). NoSeptember 05:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that the text you've added now makes the "Faithless elector" section longer than the main text (excluding the list section) in the Faithless elector article? Usually it needs to be the other way around. Since you've not cited any sources in your very detailed additions here, perhaps the best option is to just remove it, and cut back some of the details that were there already. THen the main article can be expanded, with inline citations added per WP:ATTR. - BillCJ (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those free agents you speak of can make a free choice of how to respond to an unexpected death. Indeed. They could elect Katie Couric. This however is in no way an argument for the preservation of the Electoral College. Avoiding the succession of the speaker, who was never put in that office with the idea that they would become President The Speaker of the House has been in the line of succession to the presidency by law since the first Presidential Succession Act in 1792. flexibility of electors is the issue And this is not an argument for the preservation of the Electoral College for anything other than the narrow self-interest of the electors, and the particular interest of the dead winner's political party. but this argument is part of the pro-EC section And it's wholly invalid. Since you've not cited any sources in your very detailed additions here It's all material from the "faithless elector" article. Since you insist, I'll add a couple of links from Dave Leip's presidential election website. Vidor (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You've totally ignored my other main point: it's too much info for a section that already has a main article. Keep it short and simple here, and do the explaining on the main page. - BillCJ (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act"

I have retitled this portion of the article (it was formally entitled "Current proposed legislative adjustment"). The previous title was vague. I also updated the House and Senate designations for this bill. As passed in the House, it was H.R. 1905 and in the Senate it is S 1257.--SMP0328. (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Original plan" expansion

I've added additional historical material regarding the way the Electoral College functioned pre-Twelfth Amendment. Also, I split off the portion of the "Original plan" section that dealt with the origin of the term "Electoral College." That portion is now it's own section ("Origin of name"). --SMP0328. (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring and revising

I would suggest a new structure on broadly the following lines:

1. Electoral College mechanics
   1. Apportionment of electors
   2. Etc. (Note that although the structure here is sound, the content needs work. For example, the section of apportionment doesn't make it clear that every state automatically gets two Senators regardless of population.) Comment added by — BQZip01 — ^talk: Uh, the electoral college doesn't have anything to do with the election of senators. Reply Yes, it does. Your state's Electors are equal in number to your Representatives plus your Senators, which means the EC is only partially apportioned by population. A.J.A. 20:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
2. History of the College
   1. Before the 12th Amendment
   2. Between the 12th Amendment and 1824
   3. After 1824
3. The College as political issue
   1. Critiques of the College
   2. Defences of the College
   3. Reform proposals
      1. Interstate Compact
      2. Etc.

A.J.A. 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think it could be done better, be bold and do it! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

11:06 A.M.E.S.T. Cape Cod Community College Library, David George DeLancey here,i read the information about the Electoral College ,i do understand it though i did not completely finish the article anyway it was very well understood, at first i ended up here at the talk cession and completed it , i have a few comments towards this portion of which others have added, on April 30 18:30 it states a President does not seek office i find that strange and hard to believe, though where it says an office seeks the President well that is sort of understanding maybe if just that was a portion of engagement i would understand it clearer because in order for a President to Hold Office he must want to do so theoretically it is the position that is available, i understand. this is from BQZi 001 16:47,30 May 2007 Popular Vote Should Count in short somewhere within the Electoral System though these are recommendations,.possibly, or just leave the period where it is A sovereign is a state for it is a Bodied and or Balanced Boundary from another giving it a portion of existence to the term Law. Most things are assumed though considered an acknowledgment , an Acknowledgment is something that exists, If the Presidency is assuming the Position then it is Acknowledged that , that Position has acknowledgment to assume , if a country club was to listen to my announcement to a public then a portion suddenly agreed with my proposal then the others whom then feel assumed and positive that it would work would consider it as an electoral or even a decision in controversy the time of the election within their grasp would have more understanding.

11:26 a.m. e.s.t. for instance take this if i was wanting to be the President i would first want this of course this is a desire many have desires though through time i eventually think of an arrangement towards the position, it is advisable that thinking about the public is a great means and sooner or later one would have to accomplish something of the task an acknowledgment for instance. a long time ago about 1986 i wondered why i had always since a child wanted to be the President degreeing myself with thought and balance i came up with an idea that everyone over the age of twenty one get five hundred dollars and a sales tax of one percent and a state tax of a percentage from a paycheck towards the needs of that state and disabled persons would get of course more for there needs then the fifth and last thing was the retired persons they would have to achieve a balance of funds to survive and conduct an every day procedure , then i thought of the sale now wait a moment i thought isn't a sale what i am offering, if so then the five hundred dollars would the have to be five hundred and five dollars and five cents this would happen every month of course retired persons and disabled persons get more, in all it's considered a tooling,

a high office would hire a subject to pay and collect taxes now while this is being read ,it is possible that a particular party is just being like the other for instance a Republic and a Democracy if there are one hundred persons in a Ball Room catching my announcement though only 82 are aware of it totally then the rest would possibly be still considered a republic and a Democracy would still be of some understanding, though in a since the already understood would still be a Democracy which was lets say available within a republic if this is agreed who then is recognizing it. THANK YOU I SHALL RETURN TILL NEXT TIME David George DeLanceyDavid George DeLancey 15:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

3:02 which reminds me of the early Chevrolet engine oops sorry about that what i really wanted to say was about my earlier segment i forgot about the other funny thing the Lightning Bolt characterized within a Half a Penny if two kids had a half a penny in this shape they would then be perhaps pleased what is perhaps testing testing a vote ok that was just me being funny again get with it oops ok that was just me talking to my self no really what really is a politician should i be deemed as a well whatever ok i'll continue to be serious if curious of my standard then just check it out what am i more of. and yes i do understand that this column is pertaining to the United States Electoral College somehow it has to make since here's a good one who's in. now we have how much time do we need, heck take all the time in the world hopefully the computering system won't fail and if it doesn't just think of all that loot siting in the Federal reserves bank of The United States yes of course it would or will have to go through others remember we are all hired to pay our ===spell check ==20 1 24 alphabet spell check ok enough of the nonsense i'm out of here delancey correctional check and securities of ok enough of the nonsense. Meaning if all goes well what next "halt who goes there _trick or treat i'm sorry what the,no really i'm sure that's enough,i'm cool.3:13 p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Conservative Bias

This article clearly has a pro-conservative bias as demonstrated by the "Losing the popular vote" section.

"In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president. The 1824 election was eventually decided by Congress and thus distinct from the last three which were decided without.

Proponents of the system counter that the Electoral College requires candidates to garner more widespread support throughout the Union; a popular vote system could elect a person who wins by a large margin in a few states over another person who wins by small margins in most states. The latter candidate, the argument goes, has to appeal to a broader array of interests than the former and is less likely to be a demagogue or extremist. However, the Electoral College is not guaranteed to favor the latter candidate in that scenario. In fact, given the 2000 allocation of electors, a candidate could win with the support of just the 11 largest states.

Further, there is currently no such thing as a national "popular vote," because combining the different popular votes into a single vote has serious statistical problems, and claims of the electoral college denying the "popular will" are specious. For example, voters in Massachusetts or Texas in 2000, as their respective states were sure to vote Democrat or Republican for President, were more likely to vote for a third party candidate, or not vote at all, since their vote for their preferred Democrat or Republican candidate was extremely unlikely to change the result. Conversely, a voter in Florida was more likely to vote Democrat or Republican, even if they favored a third-party candidate, because their vote was much more likely to make a difference.

Similarly, the effect might be more likely to affect one candidate than another; for example, as there was a large anti-Bush sentiment in 2004, voters in uncontested states might have been more willing to come out in favor of John Kerry, despite their vote being less likely to make a difference, as a sign of opposition to incumbent George W. Bush.

The effects of this phenomenon are somewhat known, but impossible to quantify in any close election, such as in 2000, when Al Gore had 0.5% more of the cast votes than George W. Bush, far inside the margin of error of any study. Because of the extremely thin margin, the only way to know who would have won the popular vote in 2000 would be to have conducted an actual popular vote." —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass (talk • contribs)

If you feel the above quoted text is biased, I recommend that you add text that balances this article.--SMP0328. (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean a pro-conservative statement such as this:

for example, as there was a large anti-Bush sentiment in 2004, voters in uncontested states might have been more willing to come out in favor of John Kerry, despite their vote being less likely to make a difference, as a sign of opposition to incumbent George W. Bush.

The last two paragraphs are basically OR speculation/conjecture anyway, no matter the perceived bias, and should be removed, as I doubt we can find reliable sources to attest to them. Adding unsourced biased info to balance other unsourced biased info is not the way to improve an article. - BillCJ (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your contention that there is any statistics involved in determining a national popular vote is incorrect. There is no statistics involved, because the vote totals are the entire population, not a sample. The 1888 Law of the Electoral Count requires states to give "Certificates of Ascertainment" (see [3], so a national popular vote total can be determined, in fact.--Michael White^T·C 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how this article could honestly be considered to have a pro-conservative bias? Is it because people jaded by the EC because of 2000, and editing the article to attack the EC, seem to air complaints that sound similar to talking points from the Democratic Party ? It would seem to me it's that particular batch of folks who are coming to this article with POV, and not those who simply try to say "Look, here's how the system works, here are the principles on which it was established, here's its flaws, and here are the ideas to fix those flaws." I'm not a GOPer, but I'm willing to bet that in defending the existing system, I'd be labeled one by those wanting the EC reformed... *sigh* Partisans... Foofighter20x (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If people are talking about party views -- why not mention the Republican drive to abolish the Electoral college under President Nixon? 70.253.111.217 7 March 2008

[edit] "Bayh-Celler" Amendment

I separated the part discussing the "Bayh-Celler" Amendment into it's own section. The section in which it was originally describes current efforts at reforming the Electoral College system. The "Celler" Amendment is not a current reform effort. To clarify this point, I added the word "current" to the name of that section. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the House vote in this article from 339-70 to 338-70 [4] --SMP0328. (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the New York Times on September 19, 1969 as well as the Washington Post on September 19, 1969, the vote was 339-70. This vote tally was repeated within both papers for many years whenever a story on the vote would appear. Even Time Magazine, in its September 26, 1969 issue, reported that the vote was 339-70. [5] Based on all of the above, while I acknowledge the Boston Globe article from October 17, 2004, which you have cited, and for which the original source article can be found at [6], I argue that said article is in error. Profstein2 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's minor anyway. Is there anyway to find the official House record of that vote? --SMP0328. (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Its only minor if you weren't vote # 339 :) Seriously though, the only source above the New York Times and Washington Post would probably be the Congressional Record itself and unfortunately those are not available on-line pre-1994. I could always go and check the local library and see if they stock the old CR's. Profstein2 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can easily find the CR regarding this vote, then go for it. Otherwise, it not important enough for you to make a major effort. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi-Parliamentary System

What are the problems and advantages in adopting a system whereby the number of representatives and senators is kept (to maintain the point of the electoral college in giving smaller populated states additional power) but letting the President be selected by the majority group in the Lower House? Has this ever been discussed? This would possibly mean that members would need to be elected together on a four year cycle and would remove the governing anomaly where the President can have no control over the Representatives and Senate at the same time. The Senate would of course maintain itself independently Dainamo (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what the Twelfth Amendment says in regards to the House choosing the President:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

While the House would choose the President, it would do so similar to how the Senate would. Each State delegation gets only one vote. So what matters is getting a majority of State delegations to vote for a candidate, not merely getting a majority of Representatives to do so. This prevents either the small States or the big States from gaining an advantage, just as is the case in the Electoral College. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Having the President selected by the majority party of the House of Representatives violates the spirit of "Separation of Powers" implicit in the United States Constitution. The House is empowered to select a president only in the rare instance that there is no majority winner of the electoral vote. The President is not intended to have "control" over either chamber of Congress. What you refer to as an anomaly is an intended feature of the US system, not a problem. Schoop (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional District Method

I have replaced the section entitled "Maine Method" with a new section entitled "District Method." Unlike the previous section, the new one is fully referenced. Any material for which I couldn't find a reference I removed. The new section does not focus on Maine, like the previous section did. Nebraska and Maine now get equal treatment. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the title "District Method" should be changed to "Congressional District Method". Please let me know what you think. (Uhllhu (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

No. They aren't the same things. I don't really agree with the "District Method" title either... "Districts and State" Method would better describe it. "District Method" by itself makes me think of Electoral Districting... Foofighter20x (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of changing the title of the section, simply add referenced material that further explains the District Method? --SMP0328. (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To which "District Method" are you referring? There are two "District Method" sections. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the two District Methods I see: 1) electoral districting... i.e. California has 53 congressional districts, but would have 55 electoral districts inherently different from the congressional districts--this is what comes to mind when you say District Method, as least to me; 2) What you are calling the District Method--i.e. the Maine-Nebraska Method. I'm thinking a better title would be what I said above: Districts and State Method. ... Or, this just hit me, "Tiered Level Method." Foofighter20x (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How about I insert, at the beginning of the section the following:

(a.k.a., Maine-Nebraska Method)

That way people who know it as the "Maine-Nebraska Method" will not be confused. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made the above insertion. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Main-Nebraska Method should be included in this section, because that is the way that it is best known to people. However it is not the exact title of the method. When you look at the websites for reference 19 and 20, they both refer to the method as the "district system" and then in the next sentence explain it as the congressional district method.

In addition the two aforementioned different types of district methods they are the same, because the winner of each congressional district gets that electoral vote and then the winner of the statewide popular vote receives the two electoral votes that are reserved for that state's senators which would describe why California has the two vote discrepancy in the above example. Maine and Nebraska operate the same way with the statewide popular vote winner getting two electoral votes and then the other votes divvied up by who won in each congressional district.

I plan on doing more research and adding to this topic with appropriate references, so if there is any direction that people would like this topic to take other than being detailed and referenced please let me know. (Uhllhu (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

It took me a little longer than I had predicted to conduct my research and and write a new section with references, but I have finally done it. I removed part of what was there before, but I believe that included everything that was there in the new section. In addition I changed the name to Congressional District Method because that is from my research the most common term for this method. Please take a look at my addition and make changes to it yourself or let me know what you feel needs to be done to make the section better. (Uhllhu (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

You did a very good job. I did make some clarifications and grammar fixes to what you added. I didn't make any substantive changes to that section. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Legislation

Anastrophe has now twice removed a sentence referring to the fact that the Illinois Governor has legislation before him that would add Illinois to the list of States that support the National Popular Vote Initiative. This is relevant information, yet Anastrophe continues to remove it. The first time was when someone else added the sentence with an improper cite. The second time was when I added the sentence, but with a proper cite. Anastrophe second removal was based on the fact that the legislation has not yet been enacted. If that is a legitimate reason for removal of material, much of this article should be deleted. I believe Anastrophe is in error. Here is the disputed sentence (with the proper cite):

A similar plan is being considered in Illinois by Governor Rod Blagojevich. [7] --SMP0328. (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not interested in an edit war on the matter, so i certainly won't revert if it's added back. generally speaking though, the reality is that at any given moment, there's a hundred thousand bits and pieces of legislation all around the country that are in the process of being considered, mulled over, debated, refined, negotiated, whatever. ultimately it fails notability unless and until whatever it is becomes actual legislation. on the same basis, i object to addition of fluff to articles about legislators, referring to legislation they sponsored, endorsed, supported, whatever - but that later never became law. it's subtle crap in the long haul, because history does notably record failed legislation - except with it's exceptionally notable. but i digress. Anastrophe (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way too much detail on alternatives

The "The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act" opens up this section, but isn't even about the electoral college system, per se. This whole section is way too long. Touching on the issues that a small group of people have with this institution is comprehensive, having 1/2 of the article be long, detailed prescriptions for changing it is advocacy journalism, not Wikipedian neutrality.

The Electoral College is fairly settled as far as American law goes. There has been no attempt to amend the Constitution in this area in my long life. Having this much discussion of "for and against" might make some sense on a really contentious issue like the Second Amendment. Here it just looks silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.220.203 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are currently efforts to change the Electoral College system. Along with the section you cite, there are the efforts at passing the National Popular Vote interstate compact, and the effort at passing an initiative in California to have that State's Electoral Votes distributed via the District Method. So while these efforts are not Constitutional amendments, they are relevant to this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"National popular vote interstate compact" does not change the FEDERAL system in any way whatsoever. The state legislature still determines how the electors are chosen. Why a state such as California would want to throw away 55 Democratic votes, replacing them about 1/2 the time with Republican votes... and why a Republican Governor would choose to protect the Democratic majority of California (loyalty to his own state, I guess) is too strange to guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.111.217 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reference to the Electoral College usually includes both the federal and state components. So whether you want to consider that compact as federal or state in nature, it definitely would change the Electoral College. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do Electors appear on any state ballots?

The article has been edited to reflect that all states do not place the names of Presidential Electors on the ballot. Is this correct? If any state does place the name of Presidential Electors on the ballot (with or without the names of the Presidential and VP candidates), please post the name of such state with references. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• In Louisiana the Electors appear on the ballot see Louisiana RS 18:1259 --Looktothis (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also see 2004 Electors for President and Vice President of the United States--Looktothis (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are the certificates for the electoral vote a public record

As I understand the certificates for the electoral vote of each state are created under the provisions of Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code Presidential Elections and Vacancies [2] does that make them a public record? --Looktothis (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Image of Certificate for the electoral Vote was remove from Wikimedia Commons

The Image of certificate for the electoral vote for the State of Colorado was remove Wikimedia Commons because someone thinks it is not public domain however the image is from the NARA--Looktothis (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Although documents created by the US Government are in the public domain, the same does not necessarily apply to documents created by state governments (it may depend on the laws of the state in question). If there is a copyright, it would be owned by the State of Colorado... although I don't know if there is or not. Can anyone check whether or not Colorado has a similar copyright/public domain provision? --ΨΦorg (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To capitalize or not to capitalize

Should members of the Electoral College be called "electors" or "Electors"? The article sometimes uses one and sometimes the other. Even the Constitution isn't clear on this. Article II and the Twelfth Amendment say "Electors" while the Fourteenth Amendment and the Twenty third Amendment say "electors". The article should only use one or the other, not both. Which should be in the article? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Capitalize - Proper noun, and all. :) Foofighter20x (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed any "elector" or "electors" into "Elector" or "Electors". --SMP0328. (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lowercase. Elector is not a proper noun. Article II and the 12th Amendment are capitalized because all nouns were capitalized back then, essentially because that was the fashion at the time. The later amendments and the statute are a better guide: they use lowercase. MoS covers this situation and would call for lowercase. The same is true of The Chicago Manual of Style. I'm changing it back to lowercase. -Rrius (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have recapitalized "Representative", "Senator", "President", and "Vice President". Those are the names of political offices and so are definitely proper nouns. Elector/elector could be a proper noun or it could simply be descriptive (note that the Constitution also uses "elector" to describe a regular voter). I simply believe its use should be consistent throughout this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of cite tags

I merged the various cite tags at the top of multiple sections into a single tag at the top of the article. Having so many tags simply cluttered the article. The "original research" tag at the top of the Proportional vote subsection of the Current reform proposals section was not moved or changed. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Slavery in Origin of Electoral College

Articles such as this one http://www.iwantmyvote.com/newsclips/2005/jan/news2005-01-04b.php make a very believable suggestion that slavery was an important motivator for the establishment of the US Electoral College. If they're incorrect on this point, then it might at least be worth a sentence debunking such theories, however this has a whiff of accuracy to it and surely there are folks here who know. Jamiegilardi (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Plausibility does not equate proof. So then, what are the facts?

1. "Those who opposed direct election said, 'The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.'" Yep... And that's still holding true to this day. Sorry if that sounds elitist of me, but facts are facts.

2. Having the legislature elect the executive is a direct strike at the independence of the executive branch, which is absolutely necessary in a government with separate, co-equal branches. The southern states were VERY used to electing their executive this way in 1787, so the author's argument about the number of voters is shaky.

3. "The real sticking point against direct election came from Southern states who feared being at a disadvantage since part of their population, slaves, was forbidden from voting." This is incorrect... and prejudicial. Seems to me the author made this assertion in order to emotionally charge and influence the reader. The assertion is based on a statement of James Madison made a few sentences after the quote that is given in the article. What Madison was talking about was the disparity of qualified voters. Let's get one thing straight: slaves couldn't vote. However, free whites could, if they met the voter qualifications. The southern states had tighter voter restrictions than the northern states. As such, slavery had nothing to do with voter qualifications. Thus, the author's assertion here is either ill-informed or intellectually dishonest.

4. The compromise on the EC was not at the "last-minute." A general consensus on electing the executive via electors was reached by mid July, although the Convention was rather fickle on the choice. The Committee of Eleven made the final decision, then later reported it on 4 Sep 1787, nearly two weeks before the Convention adjourned. They had plenty of time left to hug it out.

5. The EC worked exactly as it was supposed to in 1824. Jackson had neither a majority of the EC nor of the popular vote. And with nearly 60% of those who did cast a ballot voting against Jackson hardly makes him a clear winner in any reasonable person's book.

Foofighter20x (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation removed

I removed the following from the "Proportional vote" subsection of the "Current reform proposals" section:

A perceived problem with dividing electoral votes proportionally is that it would be harder for a candidate to achieve a majority of the electoral vote, since a proportional system would enable a third party candidate to win electoral votes. If this system had been used in 1992 and 1996, and all electors had voted as pledged, there would have been no winner at all, and the House of Representatives would have chosen the President, and the Senate would have selected the Vice President. It's plausible, due to the partisan make-up of the House and Senate in 1996, that Robert Dole would have been the likely House winner, and Jack Kemp the likely Senate winner, despite receiving significantly fewer votes than Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Applying this concept in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have received 269 electoral votes, George W. Bush 263, and Ralph Nader 6. If all electors voted as pledged, the Presidential race would have gone to the Republican-run House, and Bush likely would have won, but the Vice Presidential decision in the Senate would theoretically have been split 50–50, with neither Vice Presidential candidate getting "a majority of the whole number" of Senators (as required by the Twelfth Amendment).

The quoted material was pure speculation and was unsourced. It certainly counted as Original Research. For those three reasons, I removed the quoted material from the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the House being controlled by a Republican majority on its face does not mean that a majority of state delegations are majority Republican--i.e., the 12 largest states could be entirely red in their delegations, thus giving the GOP in this case a House majority; however, this would also mean that the other 38 delegations could have majority blue control. Since each state delegation must vote as one body, and only 26 states are needed to win, it'd actually be easy for a House minority to wind up picking the winner.Foofighter20x (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed more speculation:

Some proponents of proportional representation claim that, because third parties generally start as regional phenomena and because the Electoral College is a form of regional allocation, the Electoral College would enhance the power of third parties if electoral votes were allocated in a proportional manner.

There was no source identifying these "proponents" and no sourcing for what would happen "if electoral votes were allocated in a proportional manner." For these reasons, I have removed this statement from the "Disadvantage for third parties" subsection of the "Arguments for and against the current system" section. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction way too long

There is considerable discussion of the mechanics of the electoral college in the lead-in paragraph. I think the intro should be bare-bones "this is what the EC is" and leave the details about why elector's names aren't on ballots for the main article. Aldenrw (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table?

Could I suggest a table as a supplement to the graph showing number of votes per state? The current map is of no use to me as I don't know which state is where precisely. I would do it myself, but I would probably get the states wrong. GetDownAdam (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral College mechanics

This whole section seems to me redundant, with material covered earlier in the article. Bitbut (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new Introduction

The opening of the current article strikes me as unnecessarily confusing, especially to non Americans or persons who are not already familiar with the system, and I suggest replacing it with the following text. Thoughts or critiques are welcome (and no disrespect is intended towards the writer of the current text.)

The Electoral College is the body of representatives which formally elects the President and Vice President of the United States.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, U.S. citizens cast votes for electoral college representatives, known as electors. While electors are theoretically free to vote for the candidate of their choice, in practice they pledge to vote for specific candidates.^[1] Thus, voters indirectly vote for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.^[2] Because all of the electors from a state will generally vote for the Presidential candidate that receives the most votes in that state, US Presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.

Currently the Electoral College is composed of 538 electors.^[3] Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, the District of Columbia is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states.^[4]. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Each elector casts two votes: one for President and one for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a majority (currently 270) of the Electoral Votes. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the House of Representatives.^[5] Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.^[6]

The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. At present, 48 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-takes-all popular vote rule–– voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. Because Maine and Nebraska are both small, the vast majority of electors are chosen by statewide vote. As such, U.S. Presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate, simultaneous first past the post elections, rather than a single national election.

The Electoral College is controversial due in large part to the fact candidates with less total popular support can win election. This has happened on several occasions in American history.^[7] Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, due to the difficulty of amending the Constitution, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress. Amjsjc (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds interesting, but I would include the footnotes that are part of the current Introduction. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Didn't have time to format the post yesterdayAmjsjc (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I like how this intro is ordered, but I'd like a few tweaks. Is it okay to make them? Foofighter20x (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Be my guestAmjsjc (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Two words: BE BOLD!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposed Introduction, but before it replaces the current Introduction I want to know if "Elector" or "elector" is correct. I don't care which one is correct, but it should be the same throughout the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been noted in a comment above the constitution seem to capitalize interchangeably. However the newest amendment (23rd) and the US Code seem to use a lower case 'e' and I'll assume that that's now standard procedure. If anyone strongly disagrees feel free to change or let me know.)Amjsjc (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Added my tweaks... Foofighter20x (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few counter tweaks (most substantially to the text explaining the statewide winner take all system). I've also restored a sentence at the end of para 2 that (tries) to explain the overall system in a nutshell. Since this may indicate a potential disagreement over content I think it is useful to include a sentence early on that sums up the system of candidates trying to win statewide votes in order to win an electoral college majority --I'm sure there'll be a lot of people who know little or nothing about US politics reading this in coming months, and it will be simpler if they're told directly and early on how the system works in practice rather than being forced to piece it together. Otherwise I think we're basically in agreement over content and I will post this in a few hours if there are no strong objections.Amjsjc (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't a disagreement... Just trying to keep the intro to the most bare bones basics since we have the rest of the article to flesh it all out.  :D Foofighter20x (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks as well, the most important one being clarifying that Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment alone covers an Inauguration Day without a President-elect. The part of Twelfth Amendment that partially covered this situation is superseded by that Section 3. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)