Talk:United States Electoral College

---

See also: Talk:Electoral college

Removed material

July 10, 2008

I have removed the Abolishing the non-proportional electors (drop two) subsection that was in the Active reform proposals section. It said:

Another proposed reform is to make the number of electors that each state has the same as its number of Representatives (effectively the same as the current system, except taking two electoral votes from each state). This plan, sometimes called "drop two," could still be seen as inherently unfair, as some of the least populous states would be proportionally overrepresented while some of the slightly more populous single-representative states would be significantly underrepresented (for example, Wyoming, the least populous state, has one Representative for 510,000 inhabitants; Montana has one Representative for 935,000 inhabitants; compare this to California, which averages one Representative for each 681,000 Californians).

Proponents of this suggestion say that this will preserve the Electoral College's benefits and make the system more democratic at the same time. Others say this will remove the extra power given to the small states intended to make elections more fair and there would still exist the phenomenon of non-swing states being ignored.

The late historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. had proposed decreasing the number of electors in the Electoral College from 538 to 436, with each state allotted the same number of votes as their number of representatives in the House of Representatives (with one vote for the District of Columbia). Each state would be required to use a winner-take-all system. Then, 102 votes would automatically be given to the winner of the national popular vote. Schlesinger felt that this would maintain the stability of a two-party system (as a winner-take-all system already does), while virtually guaranteeing that the person who wins the national popular vote would automatically win the presidential election.

This subsection had no citations and did not refer to a current effort at reforming the Electoral College. For its lack of relevance to the section in which it was located, and for having no citations, this subsection was removed from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

September 3, 2008

I have removed the following material from the Congressional District Method subsection of the Alternative methods of choosing electors section:

In 1828, New York used its own variant of the District Method for choosing electors. Just as Maine and Nebraska now do, voters in each congressional district would select one elector. However, these electors would then in turn choose the remaining two electors, instead of these electors being directly determined by voters statewide. In this single state contest, it resulted in a 20–16 split between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.

This material had no sourcing (see cite tag that's been in place since May of this year). It also is original research in that it's not clear that this material is a form of the Congressional District Method. SMP0328. (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College Formula

Is the Electoral College Formula important enough to mention?

House (435) + Senate (100) + District of Columbia (3) = 538 electoral votes 76.103.235.233 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's important enough to mention. Why shouldn't this article explain how the Electoral College functions? Some people don't know how it works. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Broad national support"- definition

"There are some examples of candidates winning elections without broad national support. For example, Lincoln won in 1860 without contesting a single southern state, and George W. Bush similarly won in 2004 without winning a single state in the northeast or on the west coast." (emphasis mine)

This is fairly confusing. Aside from the fact Bush won AK (I think) which is technically on the west coast, surely it would also make much more sense choosing someone like Kerry as an example, whose support is in pockets on the west coast, northeast and mid-west (to some extent), rather than someone who has more or less coast-to-coast, north-to-south electors geographically. Just sayin'. Bush is not the best example of this. 90.212.122.181 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That part of the article was a mess. It tried to make a point, but then countered that very point. I have reworded and retitled that part of the Contemporary conflict over the Electoral College section to better express what that part was trying to say and did so in a much more concise fashion. Also, I provided a real source (replacing a link to an Amazon page trying to sell a book). SMP0328. (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that 1860 and 2004 were more like the exceptions that prove the rule. The idea is that the candidate must appeal to more than just sectional/regional factions of the country. No one claimed it was a factual requirement to win. It is possible, however, it's not typical. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another angle: In 1860, second-place Breckinridge (electoral votes) in 1860 could have won with 75,000 votes changed, while still failing to obtain more popular votes than first- and second-place popular vote getters, Lincoln and Douglas. And second-place popular vote getter had fourth-place electoral college votes. Analysis at: Mike Shepard, How close were Presidential Elections?
  - Lincoln: popular vote: 1,865,908 - electoral: 180
  - Douglas: popular: 1,380,202 - electoral: 12
  - Breckinridge: 848,019; - electoral: 72

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviving suggestion for a table

From the archives. The article would be more informative with a simple table listing each state and its current number of electoral votes (and perhaps projected number of EVs after 2010, although I don't think that's necessary). I'm a citizen of the United States, and I can't identify every state from a map with no state names filled in, meaning the current way we're displaying this information is probably close to useless for a non-U.S. user, who would be unlikely to even be able to identify the states most familiar to American users. I suppose the comparison with the cartographic version that appears below the original map could get you there, but it seems like a fair amount of work.

I'd be willing to fill in the actual data, but I don't know how to make tables on WP. If someone chimes in with the appropriate Wikitext to create such a table, I will do the rest. If there's a concern about the table being cumbersomely large, perhaps it could be made collapsible, and collapsed by default? Is that even possible at WP? SS451 (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section that contains such a list. Feel free to improve it. SMP0328. (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that works. In terms of clutter, though, I feel like it would be better to make it into a table, perhaps with four side-by-side columns. I'll check some other articles to see how that might be accomplished. SS451 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know how to do that. I figured it was better to get the information into the article and let others do the cosmetic work. SMP0328. (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the table. I realized only after completing it that it should really be subdivided into three separate two-column columns, so that there would be an equal distribution and no annoying blank space in the bottom right. I may fix that sometime tomorrow, but for now this one should do. SS451 (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the list of states be in alphabetical order or some type of numerical order? SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I currently have them in alphabetical order, as you can see. I have a weak preference for that organizational scheme, simply because I think it's slightly more likely people will come looking for the number of votes a specific state or states has/have, rather than looking for states with high totals. I don't think it matters very much either way; after all, there are only 51 items total. SS451 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've filled the blank space in the bottom right of the table with the total number of states (and D.C.) and the total number of electoral votes. It's better than having a blank portion of the table. SMP0328. (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Process in event of a deadlock

Perhaps a minor question, but I wonder if we could provide more clarity as to the process in the event of a tie in the electoral college vote? From reading through, it looks as if the process moves to the House of Representatives 'voting by state'. It's not completely clear what this means; I assume that the Representatives from a given state vote together and produce a single 'by state' (first-past-the-post) vote for a president? Might we clarify this? I only ask as, looking at the state of the polls by state on RealClearPolitics, a dead heat in the Electoral College vote looks possible. PolScribe (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Some commentary on this question (which - helpfully? - references Wikipedia for its research): http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/08/a_presidential_tie.php PolScribe (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionally, a tie is simply another way for nobody getting a majority of the electoral votes. If nobody has such a majority, the House of Representatives chooses the President (read the Twelfth Amendment for details). You have the House voting procedure correct. Each House delegation gets one vote. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is already in the article under the Contingent Election section. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tie in the Senate

Along the same line as the above discussion, this line confused me:

"Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that a "majority of the whole number" of Senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for there to be a selection of one of the two candidates. This provision essentially prohibits the sitting Vice President from casting a tie-breaking vote in the case of an evenly divided chamber."

How does requiring at least 51 Senators to be present keep the Vice President from casting a tie-breaking vote? I don't see the connection. 74.94.21.101 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Vice President, although being the President of the Senate, is not one of the 100 Senators. So 50 Senators plus the VP is not a "majority of the whole number" of Senators. In order to have such a majority, you need 51 Senators. SMP0328. (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SMP. The requirement is not that 51 senators be present for voting to take place (that requirement actually mandates that at least 67 senators are present). The requirement is that the candidate elected Veep have the votes of 51 senators, (i.e., a majority of the whole number; the whole number is 100, a majority is 50% + 1; thus, the requirement prohibits a tie vote to be decided by the sitting Veep's tie-breaker). Foofighter20x (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. 74.94.21.101 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But 50 Senators + the Vice President is also 51. Since the provision would be rational if that margin were able to elect (it prevents 40 Senators from electing a VP by ensuring that 21 of the Senators for his opponent are absent), the interpretation that this prevents the sitting Vice President from determining the election may well be right, but does require a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Twelfth Amendment requires "a majority of the whole number" of Senators agree to a choice for Vice President. The sitting Vice President is President of the Senate, but he is not a Senator. The vote of 51 Senators is needed for a selection. 50 Senators plus the President of the Senate does not equal 51 Senators. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense; it made sense last time - but it would still be all the better for a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source. Scroll down to "Contingent Election". Tell me what you think of it. SMP0328. (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Which words in that source do you construe to assert that [t]his provision prevents the Senate from selecting a Vice President through the votes of half of the Senators together with the vote of the President of the Senate? (Again, it's a reasonable conclusion; let's have someone else draw it through.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• And on further consideration, I will so tag. This case was a genuine possibility something less than eight years ago, and there was some discussion of the sitting Vice-President casting his vote on the incoming Vice-Presidency, if certain arguably disqualified Electors were ignored by the Senate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your tag. The source is the Congressional Research Service, which is an arm of the Library of Congress. The fact that some people spoke about this in 2000 doesn't affect verifiability. After you go to the source scroll down to "Contingent Election" to read the material I'm citing. There it says that "In the Senate, the Vice President is elected from among the two candidates who received the most electoral votes, with each Senator casting a single vote" and that "in the Senate, a majority of 51 or more votes is required to elect." SMP0328. (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of those sentences, together or separately, says that the Vice-President may not vote. Until a source which actually draws that conclusion is presented, I will remove the sentence to here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This provision prevents the Senate from selecting a Vice President through the votes of half of the Senators together with the vote of the President of the Senate.<:ref>RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001</ref>

I provided a reliable source (the Congressional Research Service). The fact that it doesn't match what you thought the Twelfth Amendment meant, doesn't make it unreliable. SMP0328. (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your source is reliable; however, it does not say what the article does. I have asked for a third opinion. Until then, I am tagging this section, for original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way, within Wikipedia, to resolve this? SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Several:

• Find a source which says that the President of the Senate does not break ties in such a vote, in so many words. I will accept this as a source for the sentence in dispute.
• Wait for more editors to come along and discuss the matter. This is the original purpose of tags.
• Ask for more opinions from an editor whose opinion you value; I have already done this.
• Mention the matter at a WikiProject.
• Take it to one of the formalized sources for mediation: WP:RfM or WP:Mediation cabal.
• Remove the sentence dealing with a hypothetical situation, as of limited value to the article anyway. (I would not be surprised that, if the situation actually arose, it would be decided on the spot, as might serve best the political advantage of the sitting President of the Senate and the courts, like the improvised settlement of 1876.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you do realize that there is a bot, whose sole function is to date tags, which will operate every hour or so? There's no particular reason to do it by hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this editor "you value"? As for dating tags, I just figured I'd get it over with. Why wait for SmackBot when you can do it yourself? SMP0328. (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure SmackBot won't mind. It lives to serve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read this document from the U.S. Government: RS20300: Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Contingent Election by Thomas H. Neale. It says: "If no candidate for Vice President receives a majority of electoral votes, then the Senate elects, choosing between the two candidates receiving the most electoral votes. A quorum of two-thirds of the Senate (67 Members) is necessary for the purposes of contingent election of the Vice President Each Senator casts a single vote. The votes of a majority of the whole Senate (51 or more) are necessary to elect the Vice President." Necessarily, by simple comprehension, if only 50 Senators vote one way, then no candidate is elected. Such a declaration of procedure summarily discludes any roll for the sitting Vice President in casting a tie-breaking vote in this instance. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. I do not see the necessity. Please find a source that does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis asked me to provide an outside opinion. I carefully read the source in question (RL30804) to see if it contained the above assertion. I was surprised by the assertion of uncertainty about whether the 20th Amendment applied to a death after the electors cast their votes and before they are counted. I was thunderstruck by the assertion that the election of 1825 was decided under the 25th Amendment. I did not find any assertion about the role of the President of the Senate in a contingent election by the Senate. The rule against original research requires us to be very careful about deductions and Foofighter's argument goes too far. In the unlikely case of a 50-50 tie, the President of the Senate could claim to have a tie-breaking vote on the basis of Art. I Sect 3, and the winner would have 51 votes. We need a clearer source, and I would not be astonished if there is diversity on this point. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that an additional source (RS20300) was asserted above. I don't see a direct assertion there, either.Robert A.West (Talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've revised to state what I believe is the strongest deduction that we can make: a single absence or vote of "present" would render the VP's role moot. I footnoted the reasoning (as a mathematically-certain deduction that requires only ordinary arithmetic). Since each senator has an effective liberum veto over the tie-breaking, I can't see how this would happen, except as an arrangement to avoid a constitutional crisis without having someone switch his vote. If 100 senators don't object, the legal scholars are irrelevant. I can't see a way to get that observation into the article absent a source, however. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think the Twelfth Amendment is clear in this regard, but until a satisfactory source for this is found I accept Robert A.West's addition to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a pretty good source that supports my assertion, and that is the Journal of th Senate from 1837. The requirement for election couldn't be clearer: a majority of the whole number of Senators. There is precedent for my argument, so this uncertainty over what the Senate would do is BS. What I don't get is why this West guy can't extend the same common sense interpretation of the House procedures over to that of the Senate. A majority of the whole is just that. In the House, it's 26 states; in the Senate, it's 51 senators. If they don't get a majority in the House, guess what... They keep balloting! It's not a stretch in the face of such evidence to see the Senate would do the same thing. A 50-50 split means majority was not achieved. No majority, no election. Also, any reasonable jurist would see the wisdom in arguing that the Veep's tie breaker is an Article I power, which confines it to the legislative process. The duties the Veep has in relation to the election of Pres and Vice Pres is simply to open the votes and count them in the presence of the House and Senate. Foofighter20x (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Foofighter, your new source is silent upon the subject of a tie: The important decision was between role-call and secret ballot. Since an odd number of Senators (49) were in attendance, there was no reason to consider a tie. I do not doubt that 51 votes are currently required for election by the Senate, but if the split were 50-50, and the VP has a vote, the winner would still have 51. It may well be that the Congress that passed the 12th Amendment didn't even consider the possibility, and given that legal scholars find ambiguity in such phrases as "President-elect", I am loathe to engage in original research. The Republic has stood for 204 years without a definitive ruling on this point: Wikipedia doesn't need to weigh in. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll indulge in a little OR of my own. The rule of legal construction is that the legislature does not intend to cause or permit mischief. Suppose there were no majority in the Electoral College, and the Senate equally divided. This is the situation most likely to produce an extended period of no-decision by the House: several states might cast no vote, their delegations being equally divided, and no one might be able to muster 26 states. Under these conditions, having no decision by the Senate would leave the nation with an acting President under whatever law Congress may have provided. For the Senate to allow the old VP to break the tie could be just the sort of face-saving measure that could help save the situation from chaos. The Congress of 1804 included living memory of dangerous days following the Treaty of Paris, and I think it unlikely that they would have intended to increase the likelihood of deadlock. The requirement of an absolute majority is obviously there to confer legitimacy on the result, and to ensure against a temporary majority due to the difficulties of travel in the day. I would not edit the article to impose this view, but I wish to show that Foofighter's result is not the only reasonable one. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)