{
  "id": "RL34604",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34604",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 353675,
      "date": "2009-02-09",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:47:29.280639",
      "title": "Electoral College Reform: 110th Congress Proposals, the National Popular Vote Campaign, and Other Alternative Developments",
      "summary": "American voters elect the President and Vice President indirectly, through presidential electors. Established by Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, this electoral college system has evolved continuously since the first presidential elections. Despite a number of close contests, the electoral college system has selected the candidate with the most popular votes in 47 of 51 presidential elections since the current voting system was established by the 12th Amendment in 1804. In three cases, however, candidates were elected who won fewer popular votes than their opponents, and in a fourth, four candidates split the popular and electoral vote, leading to selection of the President by the House of Representatives. These controversial elections occur because the system requires a majority of electoral, not popular, votes to win the presidency. This feature, which is original to the U.S. Constitution, has been the object of persistent criticism and numerous reform plans. In the contemporary context, proposed constitutional amendments generally fall into two basic categories: those that would eliminate the electoral college and substitute direct popular election of the President and Vice President, and those that would retain the existing system in some form, while correcting its perceived defects.\nReform or abolition of the electoral college as an institution would require a constitutional amendment, so these proposals take the form of House or Senate joint resolutions. Three relevant amendments were introduced in the 110th Congress. H.J.Res. 36, (Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.) sought to provide for direct popular election, requiring a majority of votes for election. H.J.Res. 4, the Every Vote Counts Amendment, (Representative Gene Green et al.) also sought to establish direct popular election, but with a popular vote plurality, rather than a majority, for election. It would proposed additional powers to regulate presidential elections for the states and the federal government. The third, S.J.Res. 39 (Senator Bill Nelson of Florida), proposed establishment of direct popular election, as well as authorizing congressional, and thus federal, authority over certain aspects of election administration.\nSupporters of direct election advanced another option in 2006, the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan. This would bypass the electoral college system through a multi-state compact enacted by the states. Relying on the states\u2019 constitutional authority to appoint electors, NPV would commit participating states to choose electors committed to the candidates who received the most popular votes nationwide, notwithstanding results within the state. NPV would become effective when adopted by states that together possess a majority of electoral votes (270). At the present time, four states with a combined total of 50 electoral votes (Hawaii, 4; Illinois, 21; Maryland, 10; and New Jersey, 15) have approved the compact.\nFor additional information on contemporary operation of the system, please consult CRS Report RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, by Thomas H. Neale. This report will not be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34604",
          "sha1": "1b1a726101c1443e7fe4cf54ebb04fd5cfa95a83",
          "filename": "files/20090209_RL34604_1b1a726101c1443e7fe4cf54ebb04fd5cfa95a83.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34604",
          "sha1": "2c1e2180b9c3b57f8987ca9659ba7f5897e41054",
          "filename": "files/20090209_RL34604_2c1e2180b9c3b57f8987ca9659ba7f5897e41054.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817582/",
      "id": "RL34604_2008Dec08",
      "date": "2008-12-08",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Electoral College Reform: 110th Congress Proposals, The National Popular Vote Campaign, and Other Alternative Developments",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20081208_RL34604_0dc7d553fd853d007a874493d17b4a9ef7b63203.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20081208_RL34604_0dc7d553fd853d007a874493d17b4a9ef7b63203.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}