Beyond the Headlines: The Electoral College

By Rachel Muir

It plays a key, sometimes controversial, role in presidential elections and is enshrined in the Constitution, but is the Electoral College still relevant in our day and age? If the Electoral College has outlived its mandate, why is it so difficult to replace?

Daniel Ullman, professor of mathematics and former chair of GW’s Department of Mathematics, explains how the Electoral College operates, its historical underpinnings, and possible alternatives. An expert in the intersection of mathematics and politics, Dr. Ullman teaches a course on the subject at GW that covers voting, apportionment, and game theory. He is also organizing a special session on “The Redistricting Problem” for an upcoming meeting of the American Mathematical Society.

Q: How does the Electoral College work?
A: The Electoral College is composed of 538 people, known as electors. They each cast one vote, and a candidate receiving a majority—at least 270—of these votes is elected president.

Citizens, therefore, do not vote directly for president. Rather, they vote for electors. The right to choose electors is apportioned among the states. A state with n seats in the House of Representatives gets to select n+2 electors. The District of Columbia is accorded three electors, although the District has no representation in Congress. How states select electors is left to their legislatures. With the exception of Nebraska and Maine, the states send a slate of electors committed to the candidate favored by the most voters in that state.

Q: Why was the Electoral College originally established?
A: In the 18th century, communication and transportation were primitive and the country was sparsely populated. Most citizens were assumed to have no knowledge of candidates for federal office. In fact, it was considered uncivilized for gentlemen to campaign for public office. Electors were sent to Washington to learn about potential presidents, to deliberate, and to render a decision in which citizens couldn’t be expected to participate directly and effectively. Moreover, the Founding Fathers were concerned that a president elected directly by the public could claim a popular mandate that would upset the balance of powers.

To a modern eye, the Electoral College seems to be a decidedly undemocratic and anachronistic institution. Nowadays, candidates for the presidency make themselves known long in advance. Information is available across the country instantly. Informing oneself about candidates for the presidency is regarded as a responsibility of citizenship. Most of us, therefore, regard the Electoral College as a quaint historical relic whose purely ceremonial function is to convey the will of the people regarding the choice of a president.

Q: What are the shortcomings of the Electoral College?
A: Unfortunately, our indirect method of conducting presidential elections violates the fundamental principle of “one person, one vote,” which requires not only that all eligible citizens have a right to vote but also that every citizen’s vote counts to the same degree.

The “+2” in the formula n+2 benefits voters in small states disproportionately. On the other hand, it can be seen that state control over blocks of electors benefits voters in large states disproportionately. In other words, voters in larger states have more power because of their ability to affect a greater number of electors with their vote.

The latter effect dominates. We can quantify the influence of a voter by computing the probability that her vote is decisive in the presidential election, assuming other voters act randomly. A calculation shows that a Nevada voter for the 2008 presidential election is less influential in this sense than a voter in any other state, that a California voter is the most influential, and that the ratio of the corresponding probabilities is approximately 3.34. So a California voter is more than three times as powerful as a Nevada voter.

The 2000 election was the third time that the winner of the popular vote lost the Electoral College election. The election of 1876 was particularly interesting. Rutherford B. Hayes received 47.9 percent of the popular vote and 185 electoral votes. His opponent, Harold Tilden, received 51.0 percent of the popular vote but only 184 electoral votes. So Hayes became our 19th president. Hayes’s victory depended on a dubious reapportionment of the House of Representatives in 1872, in which Congress failed to abide by its own laws for apportioning seats, and, therefore, electors, to the states. Had Congress followed the law in 1872, Tilden would have won in 1876.

Q: What are some alternatives to the Electoral College?
A: The simplest method is what is customarily called direct election by popular vote: The candidate who receives a plurality of votes nationwide wins. Electoral College tallies are often shown side by side with popular vote tallies, because the latter are often seen as a measure of which candidate is most deserving of the victory. The popular vote method meets the one person, one vote requirement; every vote is exactly as influential as every other.
Other alternatives include methods known as Borda count, approval voting, and cumulative voting. All these methods have their advocates—in fact, entire national associations—that lobby for their use.

Q: Why hasn’t the country changed to a direct election?
A: It isn’t easy to amend the Constitution, especially when the balance of power between states is involved. The states that perceive the Electoral College as benefiting their residents oppose any proposal to abolish it. Since the Electoral College is widely seen as a benefit to small states—never mind that it is voters in large states who actually benefit—and since most states are small, there is no hope of obtaining the ratification of three quarters of the states. So the status quo persists.

Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu