mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
As you will be reminded countless times in the coming week, when you cast your vote in next Tuesday’s presidential election, you’re not taking part in a nationwide popular vote, but rather helping decide who your state’s Electoral College delegates support. There are all sorts of arguments for and against using this system rather than picking a winner based solely on the national popular vote, but for the moment, it looks like the Electoral College will be sticking around for a while. So what do you need to know about the least-fun college this side of the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals?
Different states choose their electors in different ways. Some states have nominations for electors during party conventions, while others choose their electors in primaries. In Pennsylvania, the campaigns choose their own electors. The only real things that can disqualify you from being an elector are holding a federal office or having engaged in some sort of insurrection against the U.S. government. Chosen electors are generally loyal party members who can be counted on to cast a ballot that’s in line with their state’s popular vote.
It doesn’t have one. Although the name might make you think that all the electors meet in a centralized location to cast their ballots, the Electoral College never actually convenes as a unified group. Instead, the chosen electors all meet at their respective state capitals on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes. The votes are then counted in a joint session of Congress on January 6th.

If no candidate can grab a majority (currently 270) of the Electoral College’s votes, the House of Representatives meets immediately to pick the new President. In this situation, each state’s Congressmen get together and pick a candidate among the top three vote getters in the Electoral College balloting. Each state’s delegation then casts one vote. This process keeps going on indefinitely until a single candidate receives a majority of the states’ votes. The House of Representatives has picked two presidents: Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824.
Since electors also ballots for Vice President, the same situation can arise with that office. In these cases, the Senate immediately goes into session to pick a Vice President, although each Senator has his own vote. The Senate votes until a candidate receives a majority of the cast votes. This sort of contingent election has happened just once. In 1836 Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson needed 148 votes to win the Vice Presidency, but Virginia’s electors refused to vote for him. As a result, he ended up stuck with 147 votes, and the Senate had to hold a contingent election, where Johnson cruised by Whig candidate Francis P. Granger.
They can, but they then become what are known as “faithless electors.” Technically, states make their electors pledge to vote in a certain way, and 24 states have laws that punish electors who decide to get cute and switch things up. However, with a few exceptions like Michigan and Minnesota, votes cast by faithless electors still count in the final tally.
Faithless electors have actually popped up fairly frequently in American electoral history. One notable instance of faithless electors rearing their head occurred in 1972. Roger MacBride, the treasurer of the Republican Party of Virginia, was a pledged elector for Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Instead, he cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket. While this vote put him firmly on the outs with the state G.O.P., he became something of a Libertarian folk hero. In fact, Libertarians were so enthused by his vote that he won the party’s presidential nomination in the 1976 election.
Although most switcheroos don’t benefit small-party candidates like this one did, they’re not all that uncommon, and not a recent trend, either; Abraham Lincoln’s winning total in the 1860 election included four electors who were pledged to Stephen Douglas. Although Ronald Reagan won sound victories in 1980 and 1984, he also received a single electoral vote in 1976. Mike Padden, a faithless elector from Spokane, cast his vote for Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, as he’d pledged.
Yes, for most states, the winner of the popular vote gets all of the state’s electors. However, Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors a little differently. Since each seat in Congress is roughly analogous to one vote in the Electoral College, these states let each congressional district pick its own candidate. The state’s remaining two electoral votes, which correspond to the state’s two Senators, go to whichever candidate wins the popular vote within the state. Technically, this system could result in a state’s electoral votes being split between two candidates. In practice, though, all of the districts tend to vote the same way. Although Maine and Nebraska have been using this system since 1972 and 1992, respectively, neither state has ever split its presidential votes.
The national election will take place next week, but the Electoral College won’t formally meet to cast their votes until December 15. If a candidate dies or becomes otherwise unfit to take office in the interim, a thorny issue pops up. Some states, like Virginia, legally bind their electors to vote for the candidate whose name was on the general election ballot. Other states, though, are more flexible and would allow their electors to vote for the ticket’s vice-presidential candidate or other agreed-upon candidate.
Luckily, this scenario has never happened with an election winner. In 1872, though, Democrat Horace Greeley died just over three weeks after Ulysses S. Grant thumped him in the election. Since the Electoral College still had to meet to elect Grant, electors who would have voted for Greeley simply spread their 66 votes among other Democratic candidates. As a result, Thomas Andrews Hendricks actually came in second in the election with 42 electoral votes despite not campaigning for the presidency; he was busy successfully running for Governor of Indiana. Three electors actually voted for Greeley even though he was dead, which probably tells you all you need to know about the health of the Democratic Party during Reconstruction.
If the President elect dies after the Electoral College’s voting but before the inauguration, the Twentieth Amendment states that the Vice President elect becomes President.
LOVE the Bluto pic. I need that in poster-size.
posted by Monica on 10-28-2008 at 11:01 am
I also seem to recall, according to Wikipedia, that in the 2004 election one of Minnesota’s electoral votes ended up going for “John Ewards” by mistake. Confirm/deny?
posted by J.D. on 10-28-2008 at 1:06 pm
Check our website and play the game “We the Decider at mypakragames.com/games/we-the-decided/
If you register after that, you can track an objective analysis of how positions of each candidates are swaying the potential voter.
Track by states — electoral college is good for those who wins. Only losers complains
posted by Das on 10-28-2008 at 3:43 pm
there is a book called the people’s choice that i had to read for a polisci class in college that like is all about a hypothetical situation where the president-elect dies before the electorate votes and craziness ensues. A good read.
i put a link to it on amazon as my link, but if you can’t find it try searching: The People’s Choice: A Novel (Paperback)
by Jeff Greenfield
posted by Marty on 10-28-2008 at 6:57 pm
The electoral college exists because the elites who led our revolution didn’t have faith in ‘the people’ (aka white, male, property owners)to make the right decision.
The fact that Gee Dubyah has swung two terms doesn’t exactly prove them wrong. (Although, there was definitely fraud in 2000. Less certain in ‘04.)
Still, the electoral college was obsolete. Sorry, those guys weren’t infallible by a mile.
posted by BassMan on 10-29-2008 at 11:46 am
BASIC INFO , TIES
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
So there would never be a tie in the electoral vote, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes. Thus, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes – 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See NationalPopularVote.com
posted by susan on 10-29-2008 at 12:26 pm
Faithless electors are not a practical problem under the current system. Presidential electors are committed party activists who are nominated by their political party to cast a pre-determined vote when the Electoral College meets. Of the 21,915 electoral votes cast for President in the nation’s 55 presidential elections between 1789 and 2004, only 11 were cast in an unexpected way. Moreover, among these 11 cases in 217 years, the unexpected vote of Samuel Miles for Thomas Jefferson in 1796 is the only instance of a true faithless elector (that is, a situation where the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome). Nine of the other 11 cases were simply post-election grand-standing votes cast by publicity-seeking electors who knew, at the time they voted, that their vote definitely would not affect the outcome in the Electoral College. One electoral vote was accidentally and unintentionally cast by a presidential elector who mistakenly voted for his party’s vice-presidential candidate for both President and Vice President.
Second, if faithless electors are perceived by anyone to be a real problem, the states already have ample authority to remedy the problem by means of state law. For example, Pennsylvania law empowers each presidential nominee to directly nominate the elector candidates who run under his name in Pennsylvania. North Carolina law declares vacant the position of any contrary-voting elector and empowers the state’s remaining electors to immediately replace the contrary-voting elector with a loyal elector. Either the Pennsylvania approach or the North Carolina approach, or a combination of the two, would be an effective remedy against this perceived problem. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
posted by susan on 10-29-2008 at 12:29 pm
We elect a President of the United STATES of America. As citizens of our respective states, we have a voice in selecting the candidate for whom our state casts its vote for its president. We could have 1 state, 1 vote, but recognizing that some states are more populated than others, the electoral college system is used to give the larger states more votes … but not so many that a small number of heavily populated states could nullify the votes of the smaller states. This seems to be compromise. After all, we do not elect a President of the People of the United States!
posted by Charlotte Brant on 10-29-2008 at 1:55 pm
The electoral college is a disgace… How could you have a system where a president could potentially be elceted WITHOUT the mayority of popular votes? Sorry, but that negates the “all votes are equal” premise. Like BassMan said, it´s an elitist institution that absolutely has to go.
posted by GTT on 11-6-2008 at 9:44 am
I believe that we should have a simple system where the popular vote decides the next president of the United States, this country is FOR, OF, and BY the PEOPLE not the Electoral College and the founding fathers should have put it in the constitution if they didn’t trust us to vote for presidency. In this manner everyone’s individual vote would count and wouldn’t depend on unloyal politics.
posted by Tyler Garwood on 11-6-2008 at 5:48 pm
the system should just go with simple majority this is a country of the PEOPLE and not the Electoral College
posted by Tyler Garwood on 11-6-2008 at 6:22 pm