World Report: October 29, 2004 Vol. 10 Iss. 7

The Votes that Count

Who really picks the President? A group of 538 people called the Electoral College. In December, more than a month after the popular vote on November 2, Electoral College members will cast official votes. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become President.

Each state has a set number of electoral votes, determined by the size of its population. The candidate who wins the most votes in a state gets all of that state's electoral votes.

Maine and Nebraska have slightly different systems. In these states, the electoral votes are divided among the candidates. The candidate who receives more individual votes earns more of the state's electoral votes. On Election Day, voters in Colorado will cast ballots on whether to adopt a similar process.

After the 2000 Presidential election, some Americans questioned the Electoral College's fairness. Although more individual voters chose Vice President Al Gore, he lost to George W. Bush, who won more electoral votes. Some argue a simpler system would be better. Here, two experts present their views for TFK.

Should the United States Keep the Electoral College?

YES! The Electoral College should be kept for three reasons. First, it has worked well in practice. Before 2000, it had been 112 years since the Electoral College result and the popular vote did not agree. This system usually produces a decisive result, even when the popular vote is very close. Second, if America were to vote for President by direct popular vote, the campaigns might ignore smaller states and rural areas and concentrate only on the big metropolitan areas. Third, the Electoral College reinforces our two-party system. Because candidates are required to win elections in states in different parts of the country, the candidates' parties must have a broad base, not a regional one. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
- John Fortier, the editor of After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College

NO! The Electoral College is hopelessly outdated. Direct national election would fit better with the American ideal of every person having one vote, equal in value to every other vote. The Electoral College was designed at the founding of our country to help one group: white southern males. Under a direct national election system, northern voters would have outnumbered southerners. But under the Electoral College, the South was given extra clout thanks to its (nonvoting) slave population. Direct elections would still encourage candidates to focus on voters in all regions. If one person, one vote is the best way to pick governors, why not the country's President? The Electoral College was unfair at our nation's founding, and it still is. So why keep it?
- Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, in Connecticut