alnorth
10-24-2004, 04:11 PM
A while back I wrote a "wins and saves rule in baseball for dummies" guide that I post every year at the start of baseball season, and a few months ago I figured it might be helpful to write something similar for our hideously complex electoral college system, which I reposted here. If anyone thinks I made a mistake somewhere, feel free to let me know.
The Electoral College for Dummies!
Question: ok, just assume that I have no attention span, and can only read a brief summary before getting bored. Just tell me quickly, in a nutshell, what is the electoral college, and how does it work?
The electoral college was a compromise between those who believed we should elect by population density, and those who feared that the largest states would overrule the smaller states. In the electoral college, the small states are given a tiny bit more power than they should have, and the large states have a tiny bit less power than they should have, so everyone was satisfied, if not happy. (Each state gets one electoral vote per congressional district, plus two extra. Those two extra are huge for states like North Dakota, and nothing for California. So, a North Dakota voter is argueably more powerful than a California voter)
We do not directly elect the president, we vote for electors, who solemnly promise to vote for the candidate we want them to vote for on our behalf when the electoral college votes in December. So, essentially we vote for people who promise to not get cute or think on their own, and act as our rubber-stamp. There are a total of 538 electoral votes, and a majority is needed to win, so whoever gets 270 or more electoral votes is the next president.
Question: Well, I have a bit more attention-span than that, and still have some questions. What happens if no one gets 270 electoral votes, like a 269-269 tie?
Uhhh... that is very, very complicated. I'll answer that question later, lets hit some easier questions first.
Question: ok, so I vote for some elector, for the sake of arguement, lets pretend I am voting for Bush. This Bush elector then goes on to vote for Bush in December on my behalf during the electoral college, right? Well, what happens if this elector decides to break that promise, and vote for someone else?
This is called a "faithless elector", and they are fairly rare. We usually see one faithless elector about every decade or so. In 2000, some woman named Barbara Lett-Simmons was one of the 3 electors from D.C. who all promised to vote for Gore. She abstained and cast no vote at all, as a protest against congressional representation for D.C., or whatever. Before that, some Democrat elector from 1988 (Margaret Leach) decided to get cute with her vote and she switched her presidential and VP votes, voting for Lloyd Bentsen as president, and Michael Dukakis as vice-president. She gave no particular reason, except that she had no idea she could do this. When she learned that she didnt have to follow through on her promise, she switched her vote just for the hell of it, and tried to get other electors to do the same, but she remained the only faithless elector.
Question: Uhhh, wow. This seems to be a rather obvious flaw in our election system. Can we change it to get rid of the people, and still preserve the electoral college, by just saying that the votes are for electoral votes directly, and not for electors who promise to vote as intended?
No.
This would require a constitutional amendment. Our weird system is etched in stone, and as you may or may not know, it is HORRIBLY difficult to amend the constitution for ANYTHING. Even the most popular amendments in history took about 5-7 years, it takes a super-majority in congress, and an even larger super-majority of state legislations to ratify it. This wont be happening anytime soon unless we get a huge outcry for it from the people.
Question: OK, is there anything we can do to limit "faithless electors"?
Many states have made it a crime to be a faithless elector. However, none of those types of laws have been tested, and most constitutional scholars agree that they would be struck down if they tried. The constitution very clearly indicates that electors are free to do whatever they want with their vote.
However, not just anyone is an elector. Traditionally, the two major parties only designate electors based on proof of loyalty. You have to have a very long convincing history of lock-step loyalty to the party before you are trusted to be an elector. To the Democratic and Republican parties, and the people who support them, a faithless elector is absolutely the worst abomination imaginable. If you have any ambition in politics, or actively helping your party in any way, shape, or form, all those dreams are OVER if you become a faithless elector.
Question: OK I understand all that, now how does each state pick their electors?
According to the constitution, the states can pick their electors in any way they choose. We just happen to have all 50 states agree to choose their electors by a vote. For example, Missouri doesnt HAVE to hold an election, they could pass a law tomorrow saying "sorry folks, we wont have an election this year. We'll let our governor pick Missouri's electors this year!" The constitution does state that congress can set the day that all states must choose their electors, but this is not the same as election day. There is nothing sacred about election day, any state could move their vote up if they wanted. They only have to formally certify their electors by a specified date in December.
(exception, if you do choose to hold an election, then any rules regarding elections need to be spelled out far enough ahead of time to let all candidates know the rules of that election. Once you get near the election day, or the vote has already been held, you CANNOT suddenly change the rules of that election, it would be unconstitutional.)
Question: So, if you carry a state, even by 0.00001%, then you get ALL that state's electors, right?
Yep, except in Nebraska and Maine. All other states are "winner-take-all". In Nebraska and Maine, they award electors by congressional district, and the one who wins the state gets the two extra. However, since Nebraska and Maine are both overwhelmingly partisan, we have never seen them split their electoral votes. (Though some believe Bush may have a chance to pick up 1 EV in Maine this year)
Question: ok, these questions are probably good enough for most people, but I'm bored (or have an unhealthy obsession for details). What are the dates involved in the electoral college, after election day to inauguration?
Election day is set by federal law (The Tuesday after the first Monday in November) and theres nothing special about it. (Indeed, if a state decided to rebel and hold an election on another day, they might win, since they argueably have the constitution on their side) The date that electors vote (First Monday after the Second Wednesday in December) and the date that each state must make a final decision on electors (Six days before the vote) is set by Federal Law and backed up by the constitution. Congress then meets either in January 3 (constitution) or any date in early January they may choose (January 6, federal law, allowed by constitution), to count the electoral votes and declare a winner.
There are other deadlines related to the various "doomsday scenarios" that may occur should the electoral college fail, which I'll get into later.
Question: uhhh, those dates in December... if I recall correctly, that means that in 2000, the states had to certify electors by Dec. 12, and they had to vote by Dec. 18. The Supreme Court made their final decision only a day or two before Dec. 12. Did that have anything to do with the decision?
YES!
This was the whole reason why Al Gore lost the case. If Florida does not pick their electors by Dec. 12, then the congress could theoretically ignore those electors and then Florida would completely lose their right to vote for a president. According to law, if a state picks electors by that Dec. 12 deadline, the congress must accept those electors. If they pick them after Dec. 12 but before the vote deadline six days later, and submit those votes, the congress could choose to accept or reject those votes. This is called a "safe harbor" in the law, where its not required to follow, but a very good idea to do so.
Years ago, Florida decided they wanted to have NO possibility of having their electoral votes ignored, so they passed a law basically saying that all challenges, recounts, etc MUST be totally finished by the deadline to pick electors (Dec. 12). The Florida Supreme Court essentially said "eh, congress wont toss our votes, and the law isnt that important compared to the need for the recounts, so well ignore the law, do the recount, and beat the Dec. 18 deadline to submit our votes." The Supreme Court said "no, you can not do that. Florida law wanted to take advantage of the federal safe harbor, so we can not allow you to jeopardize the right of Florida to participate in the election."
So, the Supreme Court ruled that all recounts must be finished by Dec. 12, which at the time was an impossible deadline to meet, since it was either a day or only hours away (I forget), so Gore had no option other than to concede.
Question: "ignore" a state's electoral votes? Is that even possible?
It absolutely is possible, and it has been done before for other reasons before they changed the law to require congress accept electors if picked by a certain deadline. After that deadline though, if for some weird reason a state cant get their act together and fails to pick electors by the safe harbor deadline, then they may or may not be ignored. If they dont pick electors before the vote is actually done (Dec. 18 in 2000), then their electoral votes WILL be ignored.
In this scenario, we would basically pretend that state did not exist, subtract their votes from 538, and the new majority needed to win the election would also be less than 270.
Question: Are there any other interesting facts about the electoral college that I should know about before we get into the really weird stuff?
According the the constitution, the electors can not vote for a president and a vice-president both from their own state. If John Kerry would have chosen some guy from Massachusetts, then the Massachusetts electors could have still voted for Kerry as president, but they could not have voted for his VP. The other states can do whatever they want. This amendment was written during earlier days when the states really didnt trust each other at all. The thought here is, if we ever get a President and VP from the same state, it would only happen because the other states thought it would be a good idea.
Question: All this crap is really the law?
Yep, either in the constitution, an amendment, or a federal law supported by the constitution.
Question: OK, I love conspiracy theories, and generally weird theoretical, unprecedented stuff. Let's hear about some of those "doomsday scenarios"! What happens if we have a 3rd-party candidate who takes enough electoral votes to prevent anyone from reaching 270?
This used to be a lot more common before the Civil war, but it obviously has not come close to occuring in a very long time.
The people get one and only one shot to pick the president via electors. If they fail to give 270 electoral votes to anyone, then their input is over (other than narrowing the field to 3 people for president, and 2 people for VP), and it goes to Congress. If more than 3 people (2 for VP) got electoral votes, then only the top 3 (or top 2 for VP) are considered. The Vice-President is picked by the Senate between 2 people, with a simple majority (51) needed to win. If the Senate ties, then the president of the Senate, who just happens to be the old Vice-president, can break the tie. (In 2000 that would have been Al Gore voting for Lieberman) So basically, we are completely guaranteed to pick SOMEONE as Vice-President no matter what.
Question: ok, sounds simple... but how do they pick the president?
The president is where things really get complicated. The House votes for the president, by state delegations. A total of 50 votes possible, 26 needed to win. Each state delegation votes, and the majority of that delegation represents one vote. So, the one guy from Alaska has just as much power as the 50+ people from California combined. If a delegation can not agree (A state with 4 reps splits 2-2), then their vote is ignored. Because of that, its possible to either tie, or have a candidate gain a plurality, but not a majority.
Question: What if the House fails to pick a president?
They try again. And again, and again, and again. In the meantime, the Vice President (SOMEONE will be the Vice-president, guaranteed), becomes a temporary "acting president" untill we figure out who is president.
The House can vote and vote and vote on and on to try to get someone to the majority of 26 as many times as necessary.
Question: Does the House have a deadline for picking the president while the Vice-president takes over as acting president?
Yes. That deadline is March 4th. The House can vote a million times if they want, but if they have not picked anyone by March 4, then we officially act as if the president-elect died. The Vice-president then becomes president, and the office of Vice president becomes vacant, to be filled by the new president.
Question: WHAT?!?! Where in the hell do you get this loony crap?
The 12th amendment! = ) Have you ever looked at the constitution closely before? (Particularly Article 2, Amendment 12, and Amendment 20)
Question: I just thought of something else weird... what if we have a huge disaster or terrorist attack or something, where all 4 candidates for President and VP have been killed, the day after electors are certified, but 5 days before they vote?
Then we basically have 538 men and women who have been freed of their obligations to vote for a specific candidate for president and vice-president. If 270 of them can get together and agree to vote for someone, then they have the power to pick whoever the hell they want as president and vice-president, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
It gets better. Suppose they cant give someone an electoral college majority? They still narrow the list down to their top 3 (or 2 for VP) choices for each office, whoever that ends up being, and the congress can not pick ANYONE other than the top 3 (or 2 for VP) choices of the electoral college. (Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress, the house is now called to order, to consider the selection of either Pat Buchanon, Elizabeth Dole, or Michael Moore for president)
The Electoral College for Dummies!
Question: ok, just assume that I have no attention span, and can only read a brief summary before getting bored. Just tell me quickly, in a nutshell, what is the electoral college, and how does it work?
The electoral college was a compromise between those who believed we should elect by population density, and those who feared that the largest states would overrule the smaller states. In the electoral college, the small states are given a tiny bit more power than they should have, and the large states have a tiny bit less power than they should have, so everyone was satisfied, if not happy. (Each state gets one electoral vote per congressional district, plus two extra. Those two extra are huge for states like North Dakota, and nothing for California. So, a North Dakota voter is argueably more powerful than a California voter)
We do not directly elect the president, we vote for electors, who solemnly promise to vote for the candidate we want them to vote for on our behalf when the electoral college votes in December. So, essentially we vote for people who promise to not get cute or think on their own, and act as our rubber-stamp. There are a total of 538 electoral votes, and a majority is needed to win, so whoever gets 270 or more electoral votes is the next president.
Question: Well, I have a bit more attention-span than that, and still have some questions. What happens if no one gets 270 electoral votes, like a 269-269 tie?
Uhhh... that is very, very complicated. I'll answer that question later, lets hit some easier questions first.
Question: ok, so I vote for some elector, for the sake of arguement, lets pretend I am voting for Bush. This Bush elector then goes on to vote for Bush in December on my behalf during the electoral college, right? Well, what happens if this elector decides to break that promise, and vote for someone else?
This is called a "faithless elector", and they are fairly rare. We usually see one faithless elector about every decade or so. In 2000, some woman named Barbara Lett-Simmons was one of the 3 electors from D.C. who all promised to vote for Gore. She abstained and cast no vote at all, as a protest against congressional representation for D.C., or whatever. Before that, some Democrat elector from 1988 (Margaret Leach) decided to get cute with her vote and she switched her presidential and VP votes, voting for Lloyd Bentsen as president, and Michael Dukakis as vice-president. She gave no particular reason, except that she had no idea she could do this. When she learned that she didnt have to follow through on her promise, she switched her vote just for the hell of it, and tried to get other electors to do the same, but she remained the only faithless elector.
Question: Uhhh, wow. This seems to be a rather obvious flaw in our election system. Can we change it to get rid of the people, and still preserve the electoral college, by just saying that the votes are for electoral votes directly, and not for electors who promise to vote as intended?
No.
This would require a constitutional amendment. Our weird system is etched in stone, and as you may or may not know, it is HORRIBLY difficult to amend the constitution for ANYTHING. Even the most popular amendments in history took about 5-7 years, it takes a super-majority in congress, and an even larger super-majority of state legislations to ratify it. This wont be happening anytime soon unless we get a huge outcry for it from the people.
Question: OK, is there anything we can do to limit "faithless electors"?
Many states have made it a crime to be a faithless elector. However, none of those types of laws have been tested, and most constitutional scholars agree that they would be struck down if they tried. The constitution very clearly indicates that electors are free to do whatever they want with their vote.
However, not just anyone is an elector. Traditionally, the two major parties only designate electors based on proof of loyalty. You have to have a very long convincing history of lock-step loyalty to the party before you are trusted to be an elector. To the Democratic and Republican parties, and the people who support them, a faithless elector is absolutely the worst abomination imaginable. If you have any ambition in politics, or actively helping your party in any way, shape, or form, all those dreams are OVER if you become a faithless elector.
Question: OK I understand all that, now how does each state pick their electors?
According to the constitution, the states can pick their electors in any way they choose. We just happen to have all 50 states agree to choose their electors by a vote. For example, Missouri doesnt HAVE to hold an election, they could pass a law tomorrow saying "sorry folks, we wont have an election this year. We'll let our governor pick Missouri's electors this year!" The constitution does state that congress can set the day that all states must choose their electors, but this is not the same as election day. There is nothing sacred about election day, any state could move their vote up if they wanted. They only have to formally certify their electors by a specified date in December.
(exception, if you do choose to hold an election, then any rules regarding elections need to be spelled out far enough ahead of time to let all candidates know the rules of that election. Once you get near the election day, or the vote has already been held, you CANNOT suddenly change the rules of that election, it would be unconstitutional.)
Question: So, if you carry a state, even by 0.00001%, then you get ALL that state's electors, right?
Yep, except in Nebraska and Maine. All other states are "winner-take-all". In Nebraska and Maine, they award electors by congressional district, and the one who wins the state gets the two extra. However, since Nebraska and Maine are both overwhelmingly partisan, we have never seen them split their electoral votes. (Though some believe Bush may have a chance to pick up 1 EV in Maine this year)
Question: ok, these questions are probably good enough for most people, but I'm bored (or have an unhealthy obsession for details). What are the dates involved in the electoral college, after election day to inauguration?
Election day is set by federal law (The Tuesday after the first Monday in November) and theres nothing special about it. (Indeed, if a state decided to rebel and hold an election on another day, they might win, since they argueably have the constitution on their side) The date that electors vote (First Monday after the Second Wednesday in December) and the date that each state must make a final decision on electors (Six days before the vote) is set by Federal Law and backed up by the constitution. Congress then meets either in January 3 (constitution) or any date in early January they may choose (January 6, federal law, allowed by constitution), to count the electoral votes and declare a winner.
There are other deadlines related to the various "doomsday scenarios" that may occur should the electoral college fail, which I'll get into later.
Question: uhhh, those dates in December... if I recall correctly, that means that in 2000, the states had to certify electors by Dec. 12, and they had to vote by Dec. 18. The Supreme Court made their final decision only a day or two before Dec. 12. Did that have anything to do with the decision?
YES!
This was the whole reason why Al Gore lost the case. If Florida does not pick their electors by Dec. 12, then the congress could theoretically ignore those electors and then Florida would completely lose their right to vote for a president. According to law, if a state picks electors by that Dec. 12 deadline, the congress must accept those electors. If they pick them after Dec. 12 but before the vote deadline six days later, and submit those votes, the congress could choose to accept or reject those votes. This is called a "safe harbor" in the law, where its not required to follow, but a very good idea to do so.
Years ago, Florida decided they wanted to have NO possibility of having their electoral votes ignored, so they passed a law basically saying that all challenges, recounts, etc MUST be totally finished by the deadline to pick electors (Dec. 12). The Florida Supreme Court essentially said "eh, congress wont toss our votes, and the law isnt that important compared to the need for the recounts, so well ignore the law, do the recount, and beat the Dec. 18 deadline to submit our votes." The Supreme Court said "no, you can not do that. Florida law wanted to take advantage of the federal safe harbor, so we can not allow you to jeopardize the right of Florida to participate in the election."
So, the Supreme Court ruled that all recounts must be finished by Dec. 12, which at the time was an impossible deadline to meet, since it was either a day or only hours away (I forget), so Gore had no option other than to concede.
Question: "ignore" a state's electoral votes? Is that even possible?
It absolutely is possible, and it has been done before for other reasons before they changed the law to require congress accept electors if picked by a certain deadline. After that deadline though, if for some weird reason a state cant get their act together and fails to pick electors by the safe harbor deadline, then they may or may not be ignored. If they dont pick electors before the vote is actually done (Dec. 18 in 2000), then their electoral votes WILL be ignored.
In this scenario, we would basically pretend that state did not exist, subtract their votes from 538, and the new majority needed to win the election would also be less than 270.
Question: Are there any other interesting facts about the electoral college that I should know about before we get into the really weird stuff?
According the the constitution, the electors can not vote for a president and a vice-president both from their own state. If John Kerry would have chosen some guy from Massachusetts, then the Massachusetts electors could have still voted for Kerry as president, but they could not have voted for his VP. The other states can do whatever they want. This amendment was written during earlier days when the states really didnt trust each other at all. The thought here is, if we ever get a President and VP from the same state, it would only happen because the other states thought it would be a good idea.
Question: All this crap is really the law?
Yep, either in the constitution, an amendment, or a federal law supported by the constitution.
Question: OK, I love conspiracy theories, and generally weird theoretical, unprecedented stuff. Let's hear about some of those "doomsday scenarios"! What happens if we have a 3rd-party candidate who takes enough electoral votes to prevent anyone from reaching 270?
This used to be a lot more common before the Civil war, but it obviously has not come close to occuring in a very long time.
The people get one and only one shot to pick the president via electors. If they fail to give 270 electoral votes to anyone, then their input is over (other than narrowing the field to 3 people for president, and 2 people for VP), and it goes to Congress. If more than 3 people (2 for VP) got electoral votes, then only the top 3 (or top 2 for VP) are considered. The Vice-President is picked by the Senate between 2 people, with a simple majority (51) needed to win. If the Senate ties, then the president of the Senate, who just happens to be the old Vice-president, can break the tie. (In 2000 that would have been Al Gore voting for Lieberman) So basically, we are completely guaranteed to pick SOMEONE as Vice-President no matter what.
Question: ok, sounds simple... but how do they pick the president?
The president is where things really get complicated. The House votes for the president, by state delegations. A total of 50 votes possible, 26 needed to win. Each state delegation votes, and the majority of that delegation represents one vote. So, the one guy from Alaska has just as much power as the 50+ people from California combined. If a delegation can not agree (A state with 4 reps splits 2-2), then their vote is ignored. Because of that, its possible to either tie, or have a candidate gain a plurality, but not a majority.
Question: What if the House fails to pick a president?
They try again. And again, and again, and again. In the meantime, the Vice President (SOMEONE will be the Vice-president, guaranteed), becomes a temporary "acting president" untill we figure out who is president.
The House can vote and vote and vote on and on to try to get someone to the majority of 26 as many times as necessary.
Question: Does the House have a deadline for picking the president while the Vice-president takes over as acting president?
Yes. That deadline is March 4th. The House can vote a million times if they want, but if they have not picked anyone by March 4, then we officially act as if the president-elect died. The Vice-president then becomes president, and the office of Vice president becomes vacant, to be filled by the new president.
Question: WHAT?!?! Where in the hell do you get this loony crap?
The 12th amendment! = ) Have you ever looked at the constitution closely before? (Particularly Article 2, Amendment 12, and Amendment 20)
Question: I just thought of something else weird... what if we have a huge disaster or terrorist attack or something, where all 4 candidates for President and VP have been killed, the day after electors are certified, but 5 days before they vote?
Then we basically have 538 men and women who have been freed of their obligations to vote for a specific candidate for president and vice-president. If 270 of them can get together and agree to vote for someone, then they have the power to pick whoever the hell they want as president and vice-president, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
It gets better. Suppose they cant give someone an electoral college majority? They still narrow the list down to their top 3 (or 2 for VP) choices for each office, whoever that ends up being, and the congress can not pick ANYONE other than the top 3 (or 2 for VP) choices of the electoral college. (Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress, the house is now called to order, to consider the selection of either Pat Buchanon, Elizabeth Dole, or Michael Moore for president)