{ "id": "R43824", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43824", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 573848, "date": "2017-10-06", "retrieved": "2017-10-10T17:08:51.360424", "title": "Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress", "summary": "The electoral college method of electing the President and Vice President was established in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and revised by the Twelfth Amendment. It provides for election of the President and Vice President by electors, commonly referred to as the electoral college. A majority of 270 of the 538 electoral votes is necessary to win. For further information on the modern-day operation of the college system, see CRS Report RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, by Thomas H. Neale.\nThe electoral college has been the subject of criticism and proposals for reform since before 1800. Constitutional and structural criticisms have centered on several of its features: (1) although today all electors are chosen by the voters in the presidential election, it is claimed to be not fully democratic, since it provides indirect election of the President; (2) it can lead to the election of candidates who win the electoral college but fewer popular votes than their opponents, or to contingent election in Congress if no candidate wins an electoral college majority; (3) it results in electoral vote under- and over-representation for some states between censuses; and (4) \u201cfaithless\u201d electors can vote for candidates other than those they were elected to support. Legislative and political criticisms include (1) the general ticket system, currently used in all states except Maine and Nebraska, which is alleged to disenfranchise voters who prefer the losing candidates in the states; (2) various asserted \u201cbiases\u201d that are alleged to favor different states and groups; and (3) the electoral college \u201clock,\u201d which has been claimed to provide an electoral college advantage to both major parties at different times. \nIn its defense, electoral college supporters claim that it is a fundamental component of federalism, that it has elected \u201cthe people\u2019s choice\u201d in over 90% of presidential elections, and that it has promoted political stability and a broad-based, enduring, and generally moderate political party system.\nChanging the electoral college system presents several options, sometimes characterized as: \u201cend it,\u201d \u201cmend it,\u201d or \u201cleave it alone.\u201d Proposals to end the electoral college almost always recommend direct popular election, under which the candidates winning the most popular votes nationwide would be elected. In support of direct popular election, its advocates refer to the elections of 2000 and 2016, so-called electoral college \u201cmisfires,\u201d in which candidates were elected with an electoral college majority, but fewer popular votes than their principal opponents.\nAlmost all reform proposals\u2014\u201cmend it\u201d\u2014would keep electoral votes, but eliminate electors, thus ending the faithless elector phenomenon. They would then award the electoral votes directly by one of several methods: the general ticket system on a nationwide basis; the district system that awards electoral votes on a congressional district- and statewide-vote basis; or the proportional system that awards state electoral votes in proportion to the percentage of popular votes gained by each candidate. Despite more than 30 years of legislative activity from the 1940s through the late 1970s, proposed constitutional amendments did not win the approval of two-thirds of Members of both houses of Congress required by the Constitution for referral to the states.\nSince 2004, some of the reforms identified above have been attempted in the states. District plan initiatives have been offered in California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proportional plans have been proposed in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Nebraska has considered returning to the general ticket system. None of these, however, has been enacted to date.\nA nongovernmental organization is currently promoting the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution\u2019s broad grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1, to appoint presidential electors \u201cin such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... \u201d States that join the compact pledge to award their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winners, regardless of who wins in their particular states. The compact would come into effect only after states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) were to join it. At the time of this writing, 10 states and the District of Columbia, which jointly control 165 electoral votes, have joined the NPV compact.\nSince the 2016 presidential election, several amendments to eliminate the electoral college system and establish direct popular election have been introduced in the 114th and 115th Congress. For additional information on contemporary reform efforts, see CRS Report R44928, The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 114th and 115th Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43824", "sha1": "598616e1ed664d40239708a1043d835c16eb3a84", "filename": "files/20171006_R43824_598616e1ed664d40239708a1043d835c16eb3a84.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43824", "sha1": "0ad9bc9cdd73b3420a96e803b207975a0f7b6f9f", "filename": "files/20171006_R43824_0ad9bc9cdd73b3420a96e803b207975a0f7b6f9f.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4833, "name": "Census, Redistricting, Voting, & Elections" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 436324, "date": "2014-12-12", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:49:49.427702", "title": "Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress", "summary": "The electoral college method of electing the President and Vice President was established in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, as revised by the Twelfth Amendment. It provides for election of the President and Vice President by electors who are themselves elected by the voters. A majority of 270 of 538 electoral votes is necessary to win. For further information on the electoral college system\u2019s operations, see CRS Report RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, by Thomas H. Neale.\nThe electoral college has been the subject of reform proposals since 1800. Constitutional and structural criticisms have centered on several of its features: it is not fully democratic, providing indirect election of the President; it can lead to the election of candidates who win the electoral college but fewer popular votes than their opponents or to contingent election in Congress if no candidate wins an electoral college majority; it results in electoral vote under- and over-representation between censuses; and that \u201cfaithless\u201d electors can vote against the people\u2019s express choice. Legislative and political criticisms include the general ticket system, currently used in all states except Maine and Nebraska, which is said to disenfranchise voters who prefer the losing candidates in the states; various asserted \u201cbiases\u201d that are alleged to favor different states and groups; and the electoral college \u201clock,\u201d which was once claimed to provide an advantage to Republican candidates, but is now said to favor Democrats.\nElectoral college reform options include the following: end it, mend it, or leave it alone. Proposals to end the electoral college almost always propose direct popular election, with the candidates winning the most popular votes nationwide elected. Almost all reform proposals would eliminate electors and award electoral votes directly by one of several methods: the general ticket system; the district system that awards electoral votes on a congressional-district and statewide-vote basis; and the proportional system that awards state electoral votes in proportion to the percentage of popular votes gained by each candidate. Despite more than 30 years of legislative activity from the 1940s through the late 1970s, proposed amendments never managed to win the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.\nSince 2004, some of the reforms identified above have been attempted in the states. District plan initiatives have been offered in California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proportional plans have been proposed in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Nebraska has considered returning to the general ticket system. None of these, however, has been enacted to date.\nA nongovernmental organization is currently promoting the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative, an interstate compact that would effectively achieve direct popular election of the President and Vice President without a constitutional amendment. It relies on the Constitution\u2019s grant of authority to the states in Article II, Section 1, to appoint presidential electors \u201cin such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.... \u201d States that join the compact pledge to award their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winners, regardless of who wins in their particular states. The compact would come into effect only after states controlling a majority of electoral votes (270 or more) were to join it. In April 2014, New York joined the compact, generating renewed interest in the NPV initiative. At the time of this writing, 10 states and the District of Columbia, which jointly control 165 electoral votes, have joined the NPV compact.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43824", "sha1": "be694e301432114435bd4aa66174af73401faef1", "filename": "files/20141212_R43824_be694e301432114435bd4aa66174af73401faef1.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43824", "sha1": "79d9c4957eace0c950ab38f113abd827ea85222c", "filename": "files/20141212_R43824_79d9c4957eace0c950ab38f113abd827ea85222c.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3427, "name": "Voting and Elections" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions" ] }