{
  "id": "R44928",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44928",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 463548,
      "date": "2017-08-24",
      "retrieved": "2017-10-02T22:40:45.974546",
      "title": "The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 114th and 115th Congress",
      "summary": "American voters elect the President and Vice President of the United States indirectly, through presidential electors chosen by voters in the states\u2014the electoral college. For further information see CRS Report RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, as revised by the 12th Amendment in 1804, requires winning candidates for President and Vice President to gain a majority of electoral votes. Since 1804, Presidents who won a majority of electoral votes and at least a plurality of popular votes were elected in 49 of 54 presidential elections. In four elections, however\u20141876, 1888, 2000, and 2016\u2014candidates were elected with a majority of electoral votes, but fewer popular votes than their principal opponents. In the presidential election of 1824, none of the four major candidates won a majority of electoral votes (or popular votes); the President, therefore, was chosen by contingent election in the House of Representatives. For information on contingent election, see CRS Report R40504, Contingent Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Perspectives and Contemporary Analysis. \nThe election of Presidents who won a majority of electoral votes but fewer popular votes than their opponents is sometimes referred to, particularly by reform advocates, as an \u201celectoral college misfire.\u201d This is possible because the Constitution requires a majority of electoral votes to elect the President, but it does not require a majority or plurality of popular votes to be elected. Critics of the electoral college have called for its reform or abolition since the earliest days of government under the Constitution. Proponents of reform, especially of direct popular election, claim the built-in potential for so-called misfires is undemocratic and cite it as a principal argument for change. For additional information on electoral college reform, see CRS Report R43824, Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress.\nAlthough reform of the electoral college by constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress through the 1960s, the focus later turned to amendments that would replace it with direct popular election, which proponents claim would ensure that future Presidents received a popular vote majority or plurality. Reform or replacement proposals were once familiar items on the congressional agenda; for instance, 26 amendments were introduced to abolish or reform the electoral college in the 96th Congress (1979-1980). In recent years, however, the number of related constitutional amendments introduced in the House or Senate dropped from an average of eight per Congress for the 101st through 110th Congresses, to none in the 113th Congress (2013-2014). Moreover, none of the measures introduced received consideration beyond committee referral. \nFollowing the 2016 election, however, four constitutional amendments introduced late in the 114th Congress proposed eliminating the electoral college and replacing it with direct election. To date in the 115th Congress, two amendments to establish direct popular election have been introduced: H.J.Res. 19, offered on January 5, 2017, by Representative Steve Cohen, would replace the electoral college with direct popular election of the President and Vice President by plurality vote. It would also authorize Congress to set voter qualifications, times, places, and manner of holding presidential elections, and other election-related policies. H.J.Res. 65, the \u201cEvery Vote Counts Amendment,\u201d introduced by Representative Gene Green on February 7, 2017, provides for direct popular election by plurality, and also provides Congress with additional authority over related activities. Both resolutions have been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and to its Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. This report provides an analysis of these measures in the 115th Congress.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44928",
          "sha1": "39bdeb16abab6ed9c55c1360bcd296ed5bece0b5",
          "filename": "files/20170824_R44928_39bdeb16abab6ed9c55c1360bcd296ed5bece0b5.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44928",
          "sha1": "9b46d125c415856b04db3ac2b4e3fa02bc73e01b",
          "filename": "files/20170824_R44928_9b46d125c415856b04db3ac2b4e3fa02bc73e01b.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4833,
          "name": "Census, Redistricting, Voting, & Elections"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}