Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Historical Role of Slavery

It seems to me there are some weaknesses in the early section that deals with the history of the electoral college's origins. Given how antiquated and cumbersome it seems to some, people want to know why the Founders developed this system in the first place. One part of the story which is missing entirely from this article (and the talk page) is the role of slavery.

Under the plan eventually adopted, each state would get the same number of electors as House representatives plus senators. The number of House reps was in turn based on population -- more precisely, free population plus three-fifths the number of slaves. Thus, number of presidential electors increased as slave population increased. In contrast, if the president was elected by popular vote, slaves would not be allowed to vote, and the influence of the slave states would be relatively diminished. This "problem" with direct election was raised explicitly by Madison during the Philadelphia Convention.

For more detail, see pp. 156-159 of Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography (Random House, 2005). Madison's notes on the constitutional debates in Philadelphia are available through the Yale Law School's Avalon Project. Ivytoarmy (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The three-fifths compromise was related to each State's number of Representatives. It's affect on the Electoral College was incidental at best. Any material regarding that compromise should be in the United States House of Representatives article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SMP0328. The debate over slavery concerned representation and was essentially complete before the decisions on the EC were finalized in the last two weeks of the Philadelphia Convention. As such, slavery had no direct influence over how the EC was to operate itself; it's arguable that it even had any indirect effect. It's more likely the case that the EC was built upon a framework which already took slavery into account, rather than was built itself with slavery in mind. As such, the point being made is too speculative to put into the article without academic cites which directly support that point. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the EC was built upon a pre-existing framework, but one must still ask why they chose to re-use that particular framework rather than, for example, creating a mechanism for direct popular election of the president. (Please note: I'm not arguing that slavery was the only issue that made popular election unpopular with some delegates. But I think it was significant.)

The request for evidence is fair. In addition to Amar's America's Constitution, here's a chunk from Madison's notes, in which he recorded his own thoughts (using the third person) on the issue: "The people at large was in his [i.e. Madison's own] opinion the fittest [system for electing the President] in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." (From July 19, 1787.) Ivytoarmy (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While Madison's own opinion is relevant, I'd like to know what the Committee of Eleven reported, as it's their opinions and reasons that count more. Madison did sit on that committee, but unless he's speaking for them, then his opinions or explanations are his own. What were the Committee's reasons? Foofighter20x (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I scanned Madison's notes some more, and it appears the Committee of Eleven's plan (looking here at August 24) was for the president to be elected by Congress, a plan which was obviously amended further. I can't (or at least haven't) found more details about why popular election was not taken up and to what extent slavery concerns shaped that debate. I think it's fair to say that slavery was thought about and influenced the shape of the various constitutional debates more than is apparent from a superficial reading of the convention records (or the Constitution itself). After all, the Constitution does not use the s-word at all, but nevertheless deals with the issue significantly. It was a subject they didn't like discussing openly and explicitly, but it clearly shaped their beliefs about the desirable structure of government.

Still, I concede that it's a point that needs further research and evidence. I'm content that the topic has at least been raised on the talk page. Hopefully others can bring more knowledge to bear. Others with access to better libraries than I have! Ivytoarmy (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Popular election of the President was proposed at the Convention, but it was rejected (Source). SMP0328. (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt about that, but you seem to be missing the point. The question is why popular election was rejected, and whether or not its rejection was related to the fact that it would have diminished the influence of the slave-holding South relative to the electoral system. I've openly admitted that there were other reasons various convention delegates opposed popular election, but those don't preclude the slavery link. Regardless of the delegates' intentions, it is indisputable that in practice the adopted electoral system gave the slave-holding South greater influence in presidential elections than it would have had in a system of popular election (where presumably slaves could not vote). There seems to be a lot of resistance on here to even considering this historical aspect of the EC, which I must say I find perplexing. Ivytoarmy (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My objection is to your desire to attribute that greater influence to the Electoral College. The three-fifths compromise, not the Electoral College, gave the slaveholding States the greater influence. Connecting the Electoral College to slavery would, however unintended, appear to be a POV push.

The Convention's rejection of popular election of the President was not related to slavery. It was because the States wanted to be an intricate part of electing the President. It was felt that popular election would effectively make the States irrelevant in such an election. SMP0328. (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the three-fifths compromise initially established greater influence for the slave-holding South; but it is worth asking why the delegates chose to re-use that same framework in designing the system of presidential election. My earlier Madison quotation makes clear that the delegates were at least aware that the system of presidential election did have a relationship with slavery, even if slavery was not the foremost issue on their minds.

I don't see how this constitutes a POV push. The NPOV guidelines say that the goal is to represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This indirect link between slavery and the EC is not a pet theory that I cooked up on my own. I've adapted it directly from Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography. Given his prominence as a legal scholar, I think his work meets the standard of a reliable published source. I'm not saying he's infallible, but I think his views on this subject deserve exposure. If only on a talk page. Ivytoarmy (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To support my earlier claim that intentions notwithstanding, the system was in practice influenced by slavery. Here is Amar: "The election of 1800-01 had also drawn the nation's attention, in the most dramatic fashion possible, to the Philadelphia plan's proslavery bias.... [it] made the three-fifths clause's electoral significance obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain. For without the added electoral votes created by the existence of Southern slaves, John Adams would have won the election of 1800--as everyone at the time plainly understood" (America's Constitution, 345, emphasis in original). Ivytoarmy (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) While Amar certainly states the obvious, he describes the effects of the three-fifths compromise, and not the Framers' intentions behind the EC. The connection you are making is too tenuous. The evolution of the EC appears to have been away from popular election, which was categorically rejected; then migrated toward the structure of the southern states, whose legislatures elected the governor; but those who questioned the President's independence if elected by Congress then offered the indirect method based on Congressional representation. Slavery had nothing to with the EC. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Foofighter20x and SMP0328. Certainly EC representation is ultimately a consequence of the slavery compromise, but it's an incidental effect and too tenuous to be included in this article. It's already in the article ("the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise)") with the appropriate amount of weight. Interested readers can go to those article. Is it an interesting topic? Sure. That's why Amar covered it in the appropriate forum. TJRC (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Plan section improvement

I came to this article looking for hard to find information on how exactly electors were chosen prior to the civil war era. There isn't much about it anywhere. I even bought a book about the Electoral College and it didn't give examples of how it worked in the 18th century. I know that they didn't simply base their votes on the popular vote, but I can't seem to find information on what they did do. I assume each state was free to choose their electors in whichever way they saw fit. It'd be nice to find examples. 66.215.216.61 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What specifically in the article do you feel needs to be improved? SMP0328. (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn the "Alternative methods of choosing electors" section, with the montrously encoded table I put together, covered this adequately. If you want all the details I used to compile the table, see the following cite, which is in the article. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Moore, John L., ed. (1985), Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections (2nd ed.), Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 254-256

You rock. I was looking for it in the history section. I should lrn2readtehholearticul. Seriously though, that table is excellent. I would like to know specifically how the state's legislators appointed electors if there are some examples. Did each member of their legislative houses vote on a series of people? Did the number of state legislators just happen to match the number of electoral votes and they each chose one elector? 66.215.216.61 (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My cite didn't cover it in that depth of detail. You'd have to go back to the legislative records of each state to figure that out. Sorry! :\ -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

This section is out of date, since Washington State approved the compact on April 28, 2009, making 61 EVs approved (209 needed).

As such it is inconsistent with the linked article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.

References to the Washington State approval are in the linked article.Atocha (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; welcome to Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is Nation wide effort to protect the electoral college called "Save Our States". [1] djatopia 29 October 2009

Voting

How come some people insist that your vote will not count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.71.151 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is covered to some extent in the section "Arguments against the Electoral College". A common basis for the claims is that, even in elections that are close at an electoral college level, in a state that strongly favors a particular candidate, those voters' votes have less of an impact than those of voters in the "battleground" states.

For example, in the 2004 election, it was pretty clear that California was going to go to Kerry. If you were a California voter, it didn't much matter whether you voted or not. If you supported Kerry, you could stay home, and he'd still carry the state. If you were a Bush supporter, you could vote and he'd still lose. California's 55 electoral votes were going to Kerry.

On the other hand, Ohio was up for grabs, with support split pretty evenly between Bush and Kerry. If you were an Ohio voter, you vote definitely mattered: whoever won that state got the entire 20 electoral college votes from the state. TJRC (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Which elections get more voters to vote, is it state or federal elections? 2/9/2010 Stacey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.247.88 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to regularly scheduled elections, there's no real difference between state and federal elections, since states schedule their local elections to coincide with the dates set for federal elections. Presidential elections year generate the most voter turn out, with midterm congressional elections garnering the next biggest voter draw. Off-year state elections, and special elections in general, tend to draw the lowest voter turn-out. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Joint Session of Congress section

Well and good that the unconsummated challenge of 2000 is mentioned -- I say unconsummated because no Senator joined the twenty Representatives who objected. (As the article on that election states, BTW.) But then why not also mention the 2004 election, when there *was* a valid both-houses challenge? 209.172.13.73 jalp (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested move of Bayh-Celler Amendment section

This is great, well-researched text, but it seems to me that as a decades-old, failed abolition attempt, it should go under background, as its own section (1.4). Burying it down between arguments for/against the College and the NPV discussion seems to me arbitrary and unhelpful. Any objections? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts Popular Vote

"Governor Deval Patrick is expected to sign the bill into law."

Needs to be changed, it was signed into law on August 4th [2]. 71.31.156.8 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Then change it. I've unprotected the page. Be bold!—Markles 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was checking the background section of this article, I found out that it had been vandalized. Someone thought it was funny to change the names of the committees to NASA and council of eleven. There might be other stuff that has been changed too; I don't have time right now to check the rest of the article. Could the editors please fix this problem? Renecop545 (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have removed the Vandalism you referenced; let me if I'm correct. SMP0328. (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of electoral votes per state per election

I really only want to know how many Tennessee had in 2000, but danged if I can figure it out from this article. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Electoral College as an institution. The place to look for information about the 2000 election would be United States presidential election, 2000 or United States presidential election results, 2000 (detail). (the answer is 11.) TJRC (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Pawyilee (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording of The Bayh-Celler Amendment section

The text says "a proposed Constitutional amendment which would have abolished the Electoral College and replaced it with a system wherein the pair of candidates who won at least 40% of the national popular vote would win the Presidency and Vice Presidency respectively."

Given that wording, it sounds to me like two separate sets of candidates could win, each with more than 40%. Perhaps something like "the pair of candidates who got the most votes, and who won at least 40%" would be more clear?

Cfoner (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Federalist Papers

Is there any reason why James Madison's Federalist papers are discussed in introduction to the section "Modern Mechanics of the Electoral College"? Greg Comlish (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence describes electoral college members as "popularly elected representatives (electors)". Article II of the U.S. Constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ...". It may be that electors are at present popularly elected in all 50 States, but shouldn't this article make it clear that the Constitution doesn't require that? Or do I, not a constitutional scholar, have this all wrong? If I don't have that all wrong, and electoral college members can conceivably be chosen by some method other than popular election, who is it that they represent?

How about rewriting this something along the lines of the following:

The Electoral College of the United States is the body which formally elects the President and Vice President. In presidential election years, each state chooses a number of electoral college members equal to the total number of its Senators and Representatives. These "Electors" then meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President.

That is probably too long -- one of my many faults is wordiness. At that length, it would be a lead paragraph, not a lead sentence.

In any case, "popularly elected representatives (electors)" looks like it needs to be fixed or clarified. How about doing this outside of the lead section, by changing the first two sentences of the Nomination of electors section to read something like the following:

The Constitution delegates to each state the authority for choosing its electors. This is done in the months prior to Election Day.

"choosing" here is more consistent with what the Constitution says that "nominating and choosing" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the Introduction further elaborates on the Electors being popularly chosen. SMP0328. (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Current electoral vote distribution

The sentence before the table in this section read:
The numbers in parentheses (+) or (-) represent if a state gained or lost electors in comparison to the 2004 & 2008 elections based on the 2000 Census.
This appears to be a typo. Changed it to:
The numbers in parentheses (+) or (-) represent if a state gained or lost electors in comparison to the 2004 & 2008 elections based on the 2010 Census.
jg (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source has been added to confirm that those numbers are based on the 2010 Census. SMP0328. (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several misprints for the current and future electoral distribution of New York, including on visuals. Can someone fix these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.93.194 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Prospective dated info

Here, my addition of a {{as of}} template at one point in the article was reverted. The reason given was "'As of 2011' is redundant as that sentence is speaking to what is now the case". "now" here is the (unstated) date of authorship, not the date of readership. The reversion presumes, I think, that someone will update the relevant article assertions in a timely manner if/as the situation changes. That may or may not be a good presumption in this case; I have seen similar situations in other articles where badly outdated information was presented as if it were current. I note that the article mentions that as of 2010, attempts were underway in Nebraska to change the situation. I don't want to edit war about this, so I have not reversed the reversion. Please do read WP:DATED and the docs for the {{as of}} template, however. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming the article won't be relevantly updated if a State later adopts the Congressional District Method or if either of the currently followers of it cease to follow it. If the situation changes, many sentences in the subsection you edited would need to be changed. There's no sign that any of the material in that subsection will cease to be correct. Yes, there was that bill in Nebraska; as you said, and someone earlier added to the subsection, that bill died in committee. That means there likely wasn't much support for that bill. There's no sign that Maine and Nebraska will stop being the only States to follow the Congressional District Method. If I am wrong, I, per AGF, believe an editor will come along and update the article as needed. SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

List of constitutional scholars

Wondering if anybody knows of constitutional scholars who weigh in on the Electoral College other than perhaps Sanford Levinson or Larry Sabato? I'm thinking of writing a list of constitutional scholars (is that what they're called?) but don't know if it should be worldwide or US-only (or maybe both -- organized by countries of primary interest perhaps). My hunch is that constitutional scholars think the electoral college system is a complex mess causing more problems (swing states etc as the article outlines) than it solves (ensuring the winner represents diverse parts of the nation) -- but I wanted more views -- although in a tentative redraft of the constitution I ditched the Electoral College but could restore it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the discussion page?

Where's the rest of the discussion page? Where is all the debate that led to the completion of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos (talk • contribs) 07:58, November 28, 2011‎

There are two pages of archives; see the archive box above. TJRC (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What's to discuss in 2012 ? . . . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

Just a simple, quick request: The first sentence under the "Meetings of electors" section should have the word "capitol" instead of "capital." The "ol" refers to state capitols and such, while the "al" is an architectural structure, or like a capital letter.

Thanks! Danlang422 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done See Capital city vs. Capitol, i.e. "A capitol is a building in which a legislature meets". Dru of Id (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Slightly Biased Against the Electoral College

In reading this article I felt it was slightly biased against the Electoral College. One, the blurb at the beginning of the post regarding the controversy over the merits of the Electoral college suggests that the author wanted that up front. Additionally, there is significantly more information regarding the controversy than there is regarding the support. The article does not give much detail regarding the support of the Electoral College and does not have many citations for large areas.Puppier (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You may have a valid point. But to take the viewpoint that the topic of the "Electoral College" should be balanced halfway -- half pro, half against -- that too is a kind of bias, in the sense that the preponderance of informed opinion might be leaning against the EC. And, it might be the case that this is a topic with a silent majority -- perhaps that most scholars and academics think that the EC is a valid, viable functioning institution, working well, serving ably, but that those occasions when the EC comes up in the press, it usually deals with a problem dealing with how a particular election was decided -- so there may be a bias in the news media towards fixing it. Personally, I feel the EC is problematic, causing an unneeded distortion, and is one of many reasons why the US needs a new constitution -- but I realize this is my personal POV and I'll try to keep that out of this article. I recently came across a whole book suggesting that the EC should be scrapped entirely. The section "criticism" and "support" appears fairly balanced, but just in terms of relative size of sections. Just my thinking on this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"new constitution" -- wow, Tomwsulcer, that's dumb. The United States constitution is perfect as is. And currently there is no significant movement to change the electoral college, therefore this article is far too biased against it. This must be corrected. 68.188.174.173 (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. You wrote "The United States constitution is perfect as is". Why do you think so? Serious problems with the current one, as I see it, include: (1) inability to execute consistently smart long-range foreign policy, which leads to awkward inadequate choices such as the Vietnam War, wars in Iraq, general inability to handle the middle east, etc etc (2) lack of term limits for Congress -- the current system enables professional politicians to get elected for life, essentially, unless removed by scandal or resigning (3) citizenship only a legal label; no participation by the public in government -- a huge underlying problem plus there are a slew of serious structural problems (eg DC residents can't vote etc), including the problem-prone Electoral College which has on several occasions subverted the popular vote. I agree, however, that there is no substantive movement to change anything in US government; while you may see that as a plus and some kind of sign in general approval for the current constitution, I see it as a huge sign that everything is wrong in US government. There are still many pluses with the US system that should be kept, if possible (economic vitality, support for free enterprise, legal structure enabling a robust economy, rights, ability to assimilate lots of different people in one country, etc) but with the system of governance broken now, essentially, it means that the nation can not cope with serious long-term problems (global warming, environmentalism in general, aging population & Social Security reform, etc). With this article, any changes you may wish to make should be sourced, balanced, and in keeping with Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the Constitution of the United States is not totally perfect but it comes very close. Now for your critism of the U.S. Government, the problem is not the Constitution, the problem is the people who run the government, that includes the President, Congress, the Cabinet, and Government officials. The only people in government who ot totally incompentent are the members of the military and the judges. The inability of the U. S. Government to execute smart long range forgein policy stems directly from the decisions of our leaders looking out for their own interests. I agree with term limits (12 years is plenty), but the people should become more informed about their politicians. As for citizenship, what is citizenship but a legal label? The peoples' lack of participation in the government is not a constitutional proplem, in the U. S. you can easily mail, e-mail, call, or meet with your representatives you can also attend townhall meetings and and legislative sessions. The lack of participation is due to voter ampathy because people are sick of politicians. I don't see how D. C. not voting is a major prolem, its not a big issue in the U. S. The Electoral College rarely chooses the candidate that does not win the popular vote and it has worked as planned all but two times since it was founded (actually it has worked beter than the Funding Fathers expected). The Electoral College also prevents states with small populations from being neglected during elections. It also gives rural areas a larger voice in elections, so instead of candidates win purely the urban vote they must appeal to rural voters as well. The fact that people dont want to overthrow the constitution is because for the past 200 plus years it has built up America to the point that its now the most powerful country on the face of the earth, it has the largest economy and the most free people. That is why we do not want a new constitution. The things you listed that you want to keep, Tomwsulcer, I agree with (p.s. those things happen because of the Constitution). Again the system of governance is not broken the people who run it are, they have howerver added rules and laws that have changed the system for the worst, but those laws can be thrown out without touching the Constitution. The problems of the envirroment can not be fixed by people and to a lesser extent the government, only God can fix those proplems (which he will once Crist returns) thus no one can fix the enviroment. So my conculsion is the proplems of the government are the fault of politicians and an overwhelming majority of Americans agree, so in the next elections we must remove them, do not blame the Constitution it is not the issue and most Americans agree. Since the article deals with such a controversial issue edits should be agreed upon by everyone and everything should be sourced.--166.249.192.37 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please read WP:NOTFORUM. This discussion should be about improving the article, not about editors' views about the EC. Also see WP:LEAD which says, in part, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I make my views plain so that I can keep them out of the article btw, and it helps others spot me if I err. Btw Bill are you still on Boracay? Really liked your articles on the Philippines -- highly professional.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Is there any picture showing the electoral college at work?--AM ^(talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen such a picture. I'm not sure pictures are taken of the Electors voting. Maybe someone could post a picture of the form used by the Electors. Keep in mind that the Electors do not meet collectively. Each State delegation meets at its State's capital. SMP0328. (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I turned up quite a few here, but most look like they're subject to copyright. Here, there's an image of Congress counting the votes in February 1877, from this U.S. govt web page. Here there's one of Nebraska's Electoral College meeting in December 2004 to cast the state's five electoral votes for president, from this U.S. govt web page. Here there's one of presidential electors taking the oath of office in December 2000 at the Massachusetts Statehouse in Boston, from this U.S. govt web page. Here there's one of The DC EC Electors casting their votes in the 2008 election, from this U.S. govt web page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Good job. So will any of them be added to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So I could see that electors don't assemble in one place but cast their votes in their home-state and send the ballot to DC. It's interesting, I used to think that US Electoral College work like Papal Electoral College. Again, thanks for your help.--AM ^(talk) 17:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Article 2 of the US Constitution#Clause 3: Electors begins, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote ...". This clause was superseded in 1804 by the 12th Amendment, which begins, "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote ...". See http://usconstitution.net/const.html The Meetings section of the article begins "Electors chosen on Election Day meet in their respective state capitals (or in the case of Washington, D.C., within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President.", and goes on to say, "The Electoral College never meets as one body." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Add link to 2012 Electoral College Calculator?

On July 26th I replaced the link to CNN's 2008 electoral college calculator to a link to the 2012 Electoral College Calculator.

An administrator later removed the link (along with reverting other edits), citing a conflict of interest: I am the Jeffrey L Albertson who created that calculator.

I'm told the way I should have proceeded was to go first through the talk page. (I did manage to get some other parts of the process right; for instance, I haven't engaged in any subterfuge about my connection to my site - I'm editing Wikipedia and blogging both under my own name.)

In any case, leaving aside the conflict of interest issue, I think it was wise to have an electoral college calculator among the external links. It should be one for 2012, rather than 2008, as was the case before. I nominate my site as the replacement.

Naturally if others disagree, or would like to suggest a different calculator site, the floor is open.

Finally, I am new to this process, so I'm not really clear about how the talk page process eventually results in a change (or no change) to the page. How do we come to a conclusion on this? Jeffrey L Albertson (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On talk pages, the goal is consensus. I have no objection to restoring a link to your website, but I believe it would be better that others have a chance to opine before such a restoration occurs. SMP0328. (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I share your view that the talk page process needs to play out fully before any resolution of this one way or the other -- I don't want to jump the gun again. Thanks for the link to the consensus article. Jeffrey L Albertson (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

Immediate edit needed on protected page. The section on cloture correctly identifies the number of votes needed at 60, but gives the fraction for the number of votes needed to pass the amendment at 2/3. Cloture requires 3/5 or 60 votes. Passage of an amendment requires 2/3 or 67 votes. 66.87.70.65 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, failed to receive the required assent of two-thirds of those Senators voting, which was necessary for the motion to pass.[26] The vote was 54 to 36 in favor of the motion.[24] A second motion for cloture was held on September 29, 1970, this time failing 53 to 34, five votes short of the required two-thirds." should read "On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, failed to receive the required assent of three-fifths of those Senators voting, which is less than the two-thirds necessary for the motion to pass.[26] The vote was 54 to 36 in favor of the motion.[24] A second motion for cloture was held on September 29, 1970, this time failing 53 to 34, five votes short of the required three-fifths."66.87.70.65 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cloture ends debate on a bill or motion. The quoted passage explains that the Senate did not vote in favor of ending debate on the proposed amendment, so the Senate never officially voted on the proposal. SMP0328. (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Monday after the second Wednesday in December"

Maybe it should be mentioned that this formula always comes out to the day exactly 41 days after Election Day (not counting Election Day itself). -- 92.226.91.63 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction is currently not a comprehensive overview of the subject

Article is locked. The first sentence of the intro paragraph starts with a digression instead of directly defining the subject:

CURRENTLY:

"The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, consisting of 538 electors who officially elect the President and Vice President of the United States. ...

SHOULD BE:

"The Electoral College of the United States is the institution which elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years."

The current intro text then gets into far too much detail about pledged delegates and so forth without a comprehensive overview of the "structural nature" of the system. It's kind of having an internal American debate about the pros and cons of the system which Americans are familiar with -- rather than abstractly describing this organizational phenomenon of some country.

We can (as "Slightly Biased Against the Electoral College" above brings up) detect in this some bias against the Electoral College -- an article in which criticizing the system holds too much prominence versus actually describing the intent of the federalistic structure that was set up in the Constitution of 1787, whether we like it today or not.

So I would completely replace the current 3 intro paragraphs with this:

QUOTE

The Electoral College of the United States is the institution which elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. The Electors are chosen by each state of the United States and by the District of Columbia, but not by other territorial possessions of the United States such as Puerto Rico. Each state is apportioned one Elector for each seat it holds in the U.S. House of Representatives, plus one Elector for each of the two seats it holds in the U.S. Senate. The District of Columbia is currently apportioned three Electors, producing a total of 528 Electors. The Electors of the states are chosen according to the means established by each state's constitution and laws, while the federal territory of the District of Columbia chooses its Electors by means established by the U.S. Congress. The selection of Electors is normally determined by a popular election in each state and in the District of Columbia, however in extraordinary circumstances the legislature of a state may hold authority to directly appoint the state's Electors.

The U.S. Electoral College was established by the U.S. Constitution of 1787 as part of the federalist structure of the nation. The U.S. Senate is based on equal state representation, the U.S. House of Representatives is based on equal population representation, and the Electoral College combines the two principals. In the early years of the republic when the largest state (Virginia) had twelve Electors and the smallest state (Rhode Island) had three Electors, it produced a much greater balance between the power of the small and large states than it does today, when the largest state (California) has fifty-five Electors and the smallest states have three Electors.

In recent decades there has been a growing sentiment that the federalist principal for electing the U.S. President should be replaced by some system that directly reflects the popular vote. In 1971 a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, but rejected by the U.S. Senate. The Electoral College is today regularly criticized as outmoded or anti-democratic, particularly by Democrats as it tends to favor the Republican Party, and produced the election of George W. Bush in 2000 despite Al Gore's win of the popular vote. With the enactment of a constitutional amendment presently unlikely, supporters of direct presidential elections have recently devised a voluntary vote trading pact between the states, which would mathematically neutralize the effect of the Electoral College. As of 2011 this pact has been enacted as state law by eight states as well as by the District of Columbia, all Democratic Party-controlled, and comprising about one-quarter of the total Electoral College votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.20.226 (talk • contribs)

END QUOTE

I made some changes to the Introduction's first paragraph, based on your suggestion. The Introduction is otherwise unchanged. I appreciate your suggestion, but it is too detailed and long for an Introduction. An Introduction is supposed to be a brief summary of the article. Thanks for your help in improving this article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Historic electoral vote distribution

It is nice that this chart has historical information but my guess is that most people want to see recent data. As the chart is currently set up one can not see (and read) state names and recent numbers at same time easily on many monitors.

This could be fixed several ways...

o If columns could be hidden temporarily - maybe by default. I presume the table generation software does not currently support this (?)

o The State names column could be repeated several times across the width of the table.

o The order of columns could be switched to have time decrease from left to right.

Another comment: It would be nice if there were a new second row with links to explanations why the numbers changed more than every census (e.g new states by name) Fholson (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from George C. Edwards III

In this article there is a quote from George C. Edwards III under the section Contemporary conflict/criticism:

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting. —George C. Edwards, 2011[76]

He is quoted again and is also referred to within the body of the article. I'm not really sure what standard operating procedure is on wikipedia, but shouldn't there be something that establishes who he is before quoting him? He may be well known within the academic community, but I had never heard of him. He doesn't have a page of his own so beyond the link to his book ISDN number and title at the bottom, wikipedia doesn't explain who he is. I did find this page from Texas A&M:

http://www-polisci.tamu.edu/faculty/edwards/

I want to make clear that I don't have any issue with the quotes or the sentiment expressed in them, just that they are presented with no real context so a reader of the article isn't sure what to make of them. Cursory Google research indicates that Dr. Edwards seems to be well regarded.

How are these situations typically handled? Does this professor meet the notoriety standards to merit his own page? If so it is worth shooting him an email?

Again, I'm totally unfamiliar with any part of this process beyond briefly reading some of the help pages and just wanted to help clarify the article.

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmike (talk • contribs) 23:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect these may violate NPOV -- rsm 1 Nov 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.195.170 (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Congress has rejected a state's electoral votes

In Electoral College (United States)#Joint session of Congress and the contingent election, it says that "but never in history has Congress voted to reject a State's certificate of vote." This seems to contradict United States presidential election, 1872#Results and disputed votes, which says "The electoral votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were rejected due to irregularities." --50.193.52.113 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I noticed that neither reference is sourced, so I don't know which reference is correct. SMP0328. (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I found a source supporting the info about the rejections[3]. I changed this article and added a cite to both articles. I also found another supporting source[4], but didn't cite it because it's published by PediaPress. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Abolishing electoral college

Under the abolishing electoral college sub-topic, it mentions that the focus will swing toward urban, as opposed to rural and suburban areas, due to the higher population density. However, since the the top 100 most populous cities only contain 8% of the nation's population, the supposed swing will not have a major effect. I believe that a comment or statement of this should be added to the article. 108.16.178.216 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That subsection is stating the opinion of some Electoral College defenders/supporters. It is not claiming that opinion is factually correct. You are free to add reliably sourced material countering that opinion. SMP0328. (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I edit a protected page? 108.16.180.239 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's how, in my humble opinion/view: (1) You can make a suggestion here in TALK for editors to consider; (2) Better still, you can become an editor, so easy to do. Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

activists

In 2004 and 2008, members of the electoral college were lobbied by activists to change their vote.[5] Maybe this could be added to the "faithless electors" section. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

James Madison Quote in "Background" Section

The Background section states,

Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:[7]

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

I don't think that the quote says what the gloss indicates that it says. Madison isn't pointing to the "prevalence of slavery" in the South as the problem with popular election of the President. At the time, there was generally universal suffrage for white, male citizens in the North, but suffrage in the South was tied to land ownership. Additionally, a larger proportion of the South's population was made up of slaves, who could not vote.

Madison is thus saying that a popular election as such was impossible given the state of the law, and using a popular vote for the Presidency would essentially be giving the office over to the Northern states.

I would recommend that the gloss be changed to read, "Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, divergences in the suffrage laws amongst the states meant that it was not feasible."

209.119.228.66 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction as to what "Electoral College" is...

It is not an institution, but rather than a process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.212.72 (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Images

There is no need for out of date image showing the distribution electoral college because only the most current one is required. The other images mean nothing unless someone is prepared to create a separate article on the Historical distribution within the Electoral College (United States)? Then every image of every Electoral college could be presented since 1796 showing how the numbers have increased or changed for every state and every presidential election.

IMO keeping the most recent images that now mean nothing is just looks untidy and pointless. 109.145.116.113 (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Historic electoral vote distribution

Since I cannot edit this page, I am writing here. I had to write a paper about the presidential elections in the 20th century and by chance detected that the electoral votes for Kansas of the year 1904 and 1908 in the table are wrong. If you count you can see that in the end 2 are missing.

Kansas had 10 instead of 8, as can be seen here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1905_1909.html#1908

141.35.40.137 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrected it myself. :) 141.35.40.137 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DC is entitled to what?

I've been on a long Wikibreak, but this is one of the most egregious errors I've seen in Wikipedia. "The number of electors in each State is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the State or District of Columbia is entitled." Under the constitution, DC isn't entitled to any Senators or Representatives. (mzk1)62.219.96.2 (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. It could probably use a little polish. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Since your edit, your fix has been repolished by reversion. As I write this, the sentence reads as follows:

The number of electors in each State is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the State or District of Columbia is entitled.

Of course, as you point out, the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution did not entitle the District to any members of Congress. Currently, the District of Colombia is allotted three Electors (if the District were a State, it would be entitled to two Senators and one Representative, as the current population of the District is roughly the same as the population of Wyoming -- the least populous State).

I suggest a rewrite along the lines of the following:

The number of electors in the electoral college is equal to the total number of members of Congress, plus the number of congressmembers to which the District of Columbia would be entitled if it were a State.

A better wordsmith than I could probably improve that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the edit summary says "Previous wording is clearer"; which I suppose is technically true; but the previous wording was wrong, clear as it may be. My personal preference is for correct over wrong but clear, but maybe that's just me. TJRC (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've separated out the reference to the District of Columbia and the Twenty-third Amendment, so I think the Introduction is now clearer. SMP0328. (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

1788-1800

I feel like the way that the chronological table is currently set up is misleading. It shows twice as many electoral votes as there actually were, for example, 6 for Delaware, even though Delaware only had 3 electoral votes. Now, I'm assuming the reason it's listed this way is that each elector had two votes, but each vote had to be cast for a different person, so the number of votes available for any given candidate was 1 per elector. Furthermore, the last row explicitly says "total electors", not "total electoral votes". There were only 81 electors (or would've been if New York had chosen electors), not 162 in 1789, 135 electors in 1792, not 270, and 138 not 276 in 1796/1800. I'm editing those to show the actual number of electors XinaNicole (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The State election systems section

The State election systems section appears to have problems. The wording "The Electoral College allows each state ..." reads as if it is describing control over the choosing of electors in a state by the Electoral College. This, of course, is not the case -- and I don't think this is how this is intended to be read. I think this is intended to be read something like "The Electoral College system allows ...".

There are more problems, however. The section goes on to describe allowable differences between states in voting systems by which electors are chosen. Article iI, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ...". States are not required to choose electors by a system of voting -- a state could decide to have elector-candidates arm-wrestle for it. This is explained in the Alternative methods of choosing electors section of the article.

I suggest that this section be retitled something like Selection of electors, and its initial sentence be rewritten so as not to imply that states are required to select electors using some sort of voting system; perhaps, "Under the current system, individual state legislatures choose the manner of selecting electors." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What about the case of the death of an elector prior to their vote? 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I spent a Sunday afternoon in December 2012 counting the electoral votes, a few weeks before Vice President Biden led the official counting. The electoral certificates were available online almost immediately after the votes were cast on December 17. I found it interesting that in cases where an elector was a no-show, the electors present elected a replacement on the spot, as indicated here on the forms accompanying <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-california.pdf">California's 2012 Electoral Votes</a>. - HankW512 (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The famous author James Michener wrote a book about his experience as a Pennsylvania elector in 1968. When his state's electors met to do their constitutional duty, there were a couple of vacancies, so they had to draft a couple of friends to sit in. So long as the vote is effectively automatic, it really doesn't matter, but his point was that there is great potential for mischief. WHPratt (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ties

So what happens if there are two Presidential Candidates who come in third? The House has to select from the top three candidates, but in this case there are two who vie for the #3 slot.

What happens if there are two Vice-Presidential Candidates who come in second? Similar to above, but there are two who vie for the #2 slot. Jokem (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's never happened, so there's no way to know for sure. IMO, the people involved in either tie you describe would be eligible to be elected by the appropriate House of Congress. SMP0328. (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the question was about selection by Congress following a failed electoral vote in which no candidate garnered an absolute majority. Let me try to clarify with examples

• Presume that four persons garner electoral votes for President: 135 votes each for A and B, 134 votes each for C and D. No candidate garnered a majority, so the selection goes to the House. The House is mandated to select the President from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President. Which three of these four candidates are chosen for consideration?
• Presume that four persons garner electoral votes for Vice President: 135 votes each for E and F, 134 votes each for G and H. No candidate garnered a majority, so the selection goes to the Senate. The Senate is mandated to select the VP from between candidates garnering the three highest numbers of votes. Since there were only two numbers of votes (134 and 135), they choose from among the four. Suppose an unbreakable tie develops in the Senate voting; which candidate becomes VP?

I think you got it right, though: It's never happened, so there's no way to know for sure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

INCORRECT: It is true that when no presidential candidate receives votes from an absolute majority of electors, the U.S. House of Representatives elects the President from among the three candidates with the highest electoral vote totals. However, when no vice presidential candidate receives votes from an absolute majority of electors, the U.S. Senate elects the Vice President from between the TWO candidates with the highest electoral vote totals.

BTW, great question regarding the scenario in which nobody has an absolute majority of votes for president and there is a tie for third place. If there is any possibility in such a scenario of strictly adhering to the text of the 12th Amendment as written, it must be done. I hadn't noticed before just now, but the Amendment does not actually state that the House selects the president from among the top three vote recipients. What is states is that the House selects the president from among a number of top vote recipients not to exceed three. Since they cannot choose from among four, since it would be unfair to exclude one of those tied for third without excluding both, and since it would completely satisfy the letter of the 12th Amendment to choose from between the top two, that's what the House would have to do in such a scenario.

HankW512 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"contemporary conflict"

Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important, distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states.

This doesn't make any sense at all. The undemocratic nature is due to the winner-takes-all system, and not the electoral college as such. And the importance for federalism is in the electoral college as such, and certainly not in the winner-takes-all system. Therefore, this apparent "pro and con" argument is misleading. It puts a weakness of one aspect against the strength of another, completely ignoring that the strength could easily be had without the weakness.

Maine and Nebraska use the "Congressional District Method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by the statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996.

Why on earth does Florida not switch to this system? I thought that winner-takes-all was set down in the constitution, but seeing as it is not, I see no reasonable argument whatsoever why the swing states (or all states for that matter) wouldn't take this approach. Unless, of course, people in Florida actually like to suffer and to bicker about 'too close to call' races.

My problem with the article is that the lengthy "conflict" section goes on and on about federalism issues, and it does not even attempt to clarify why 48 states would cling to a clearly unfair system, while 2 states have no problem with adopting a system that actually makes sense. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

About the "Electoral College is inherently undemocratic" argument. What this means, essentially, is that the Electoral College allows campaigners to win in a state-by-state strategy without having to win the overall popular vote. And that's undemocratic because it goes against the one person, one vote principle. A second related issue is that the Electoral College gives swing states disproportionate influence, but it does not do this by itself, but rather combined with the winner-takes-all system, the end result is that contemporary campaigns spend most of their time and money in populous undecided states such as Ohio. If presidents were elected by the overall popular vote, according to this view, then the voting system would be fairer and more democratic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why does Florida not switch to a Congressional District Method. Here I am not certain. But one thing I would like to point out is that being a "swing state" confers a huge financial benefit to such states: hotel room visits, restaurants, TV station advertising, part-time jobs -- the flurry of all this activity easily translates into hundreds of millions of new revenues which means tax windfalls for state treasuries. New Hampshire's treasury benefits incredibly by the flurry of activity every four years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you just answered your own question. If Florida were to adopt the Congressional District Method, it would cease to be a "swing-state", in the sense that it would not be quite as important whether the popular vote in Florida went 51% Democratic or 51% Republican, since roughly half of the electors would be Democratic and half Republican either way. Without winner-takes-all Florida would loose the disproportionate influence that comes with being a swing state. Gabbe (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In a great many districts across the nation, the result would be a foregone conclusion. Thus, for a state like Florida with 27 districts, maybe 24 of those would be predictably D or R, with real contests in only three districts. The campaigns would either focus only on the swinmg districts and ignore the rest, or they might ignore the state entirely, since only a few net electoral votes were up for grabs. Better to expend resources on a smaller state with 6 electroal votes but winner-take-all, then hope to win Florida by 14-13 and come away with a very small net advantage. Most states adopted the unit rule for their own protection. WHPratt (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there is a need for a number of the readers to be reminded of the one reason far above all others for the existence of our electoral college system, the purpose for which it was proposed in the first place: COMPROMISE.

One does not need to watch C-SPAN very long before becoming painfully aware that U.S. politicians were a lot better at compromise in the 18th century than they are in the 21st century. To have an electoral system that directly reflects the desires of a majority of the public would not be fair to small states. Likewise, to have a system by which the desires of each state are equally represented would not be fair to a majority of the public. I think they knew what they were doing when they proposed that each state's presidential voting power be equal to the state's total representation entitlement in both houses of Congress. They could have made each state's presidential voting power proportional to its share of the national population simply by making the number of electors per state equal to the state's share of seats in the House of Representatives; that does, after all, exactly match their design of the House. But by adding those two extra electors per state, they purposely created an imbalance in the number of citizens per elector that favored the smallest states most, while ensuring that states with greater populations still have more electors. Apparently their intention was to balance the states' desires and the people's desires by creating a system that reflected Congress itself, the balance of the House of the People and the House of the States.

It is my understanding that the Constitutional Convention already had majority support for a Constitution by which the President is elected by the Legislature. I think a great deal of praise is deserved by anyone who is aware that he has the support of a majority and yet continues to endeavor to satisfy an even greater majority. Considering that the outcomes of 93% of the U.S. presidential elections to date did reflect what was wanted by a majority of those who voted, I'd say the public made out pretty well on that deal.

- HankW512 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

George C. Edwards

Is the George C. Edwards referenced here the same the person who's the subject of this article? If yes, that reference should link to the article of the same name. SMP0328. (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the Edwards referred to is this guy (who probably ought to have an article, but does not). TJRC (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me and in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2013

this page needs to be updated as the section 5.1.1 states "The elections of 1876, 1888, and 2000 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the plurality of the nationwide popular vote." when it should state "The elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2012 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the plurality of the nationwide popular vote." 98.198.91.105 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Obama won the electoral college and also got more popular votes than the other candiditates. United_States_presidential_election,_2012 RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Indirectly

I see the following just after the statement that the President and Vice President are not elected directly by the voters:

they are elected indirectly by "electors"

Please remove the word "indirectly" from what I just quoted. The electors do the DIRECT election of President and Vice President. The indirect election is the previously-mentioned popular vote.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Popular vote choosing electors

This edit caught my eye, and it struck me that the text seemed to imply that the electors are elected by name. The cited supporting source (with data from the year 2000) makes it clear that elect un-named slates of electors. In a followup edit, I changed "elected by popular vote" to "chosen by popular vote" in the article lead and cited an additional source supporting this. I also added the info, supported by the added source, that electors have been chosen by popular vote since the Civil War.

I don't know enough about the historical details to fix this and have not researched it, but it seems to me that the Alternative methods of choosing electors section begs the inference that electors have been chosen by popular ballot in all states since 1832 not since the civil war (contrary to what the source cite I've added to the lead says). I am no expert on this period, and it seems to me that the info about this could and should be clearer. I looked at the United States presidential election, 1836 article hoping to find more clarity about this there, but that left me even more confused (e.g., the results map and the table in the Results section there seem to contradict one another). I may comment or question further re this on the talk pages of that or other articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Original plan

Looking at the original plan, I find this:

the candidate who received both the most votes and more than half of all votes cast would become President

Try this wording:

the candidate who received both the most votes and votes from more than half of the electors would become President

Try reading that part of the Constitution, and also the table used here on Wikipedia for the 1796 election (in which John Adams became President due to receiving 71 electoral votes); that table has 276 total electoral votes because each elector was (and still is) to vote for TWO candidates.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, thank you for pointing this out. BryanG (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary/Caucus formula

How about adding a section describing the electoral college formula used in the primary/caucus system. It's clearly not the 538 number used in the general election. jg (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Primaries and caucuses are handled by the States and political parties, not the Electoral College. SMP0328. (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Election district voting

I think the article would be improved if the table that showed the actual results (which is based on the use of the Winner Take All system in 48 of the 50 states) were enhanced with another table that showed what the result would have been if the votes had been distributed based on who won each electoral district (with the other 2 remaining as state wide). The impact of Congress being elected with 2 state wide Senators and Election District based Representatives yet the Electors not being selected the same way is not addressed in the article nor is how this method would have affected the results. While I can not point at an article, I have the impression that in 2000 I read that if this system were in use the problem of Florida's EC votes would have been a non-issue since by this method the needed 270 EC votes would have been assigned even ignoring Florida. RARPSL (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is that such a table would involve speculation. A chart showing the results of past presidential elections would be speculative, because it would be based on the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. Presidential candidates would campaign very differently if the country went under the District Method. Now, candidates focus on "swing states". Under the District Method, candidates would focus on Congressional districts, with statewide votes being far less significant. SMP0328. (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Origins of "electoral college"

since another user seems to dispute my contributions to the "see also" section, i thought i would start a discussion for it here:

WHO, HERE, THINKS THAT electoral college & prince-elector "HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER" TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE, & the concepts that it deals with? or that citing these wikipedia articles as links in the 'see also' section is "ORIGINAL RECEARCH"? Lx 121 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Where in either of those articles is it claimed that either is the "origin" of the United States Electoral College? As for your questions, the personal views of any editor is irrelevant regarding the origin of the EC. What matters is your failure to provide reliable sourcing for your claim. This failure makes your claim original research. It is not the job of anyone to disprove your claim. Please provide reliable sourcing for your claim or remove it from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Electoral College and write-in candidates

In American presidential elections, what would happen if a write-in candidate won the state tally in a particular state? More specifically, who would be sent to the Electoral College? A write-in candidate would, necessarily, not have nominated pledged candidates for electors. SchnitteUK (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Selection between proposed slates of electors by popular voting is not mandated by the U.S. constitution. Re-read the bit about Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 in the article. If election law in the state in question does not cover this situation, the state legislature should convene to select electors in the interval between public voting and the date specified for electors to vote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material

I have removed the following three subsections:

State election systems

The Electoral College allows each state to conduct elections using its choice of voting system, within certain restrictions in federal law, without those decisions affecting votes cast for president in other states. A national popular vote, by definition, requires all states to use plurality voting and could lead to stronger arguments for national election rules and standards.

Neutralizes turnout disparities between states

Weather can vary greatly across a large area such as when rain or winter storms impact voter participation in affected states. In addition, when a state has another high profile contest, such as a hotly contested Senate, gubernatorial race or ballot proposition, turnout in that state can be affected. Because the allocation of electoral votes is independent of each state's turnout, the Electoral College neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states. At the same time, turnout can vary within states for similar reasons – hotly contested local races and weather affecting only one part of a state, for example – and have an impact on who wins that state and, potentially, who wins the presidency.

Maintains separation of powers

The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. Critics of the current system suggest that popular vote elections already tie the hands of electors in states and that adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would not affect any separation of powers or state powers over how to choose their electors.

The quoted material has been cite tagged for over a year. That is more than enough time for reliable sourcing to be found. To the extent RS is found, this material can be returned to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also removed some unsourced material from a subsubsection:

Some critics of the Electoral College assert that the system favors the Republican Party by disproportionately boosting the electoral weight of the less populous states, but Democrats in fact won the majority of the 13 smallest states in five of the six presidential elections between 1992 and 2008.

To the extent reliable sourcing is found, the above material can be returned to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarifications

In the first paragraph, I think "The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled..." should be changed to "The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state will be entitled on Inauguration Day..." to cover the situation that is unique to presidential election years ending with a "2", when the number of electors appointed per state is based on the representation that takes effect the following January. While it is true that at the same time voters are recording their preferences for President and Vice President they are also electing the first Representatives for the newly-created congressional districts gained from the most recent reapportionment, they still will not be entitled to those seats until January 3rd.

In the second paragraph where it is stated that no elector is bound by federal law to honor a pledge, I think it's worth noting that about half of the states do have state laws to "strongly encourage" electors to honor their pledges. The means of "encouragement" varies quite a bit. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html at the web site of the U.S. National Archives. HankW512 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for your assertion regarding the first paragraph of your comment? If so, go make the change. SMP0328. (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have handy a secondary source, but HankW512's comment is consistent with the primary source, 3 U.S.C. § 3: The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office; except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed something else: In the second paragraph of the section Modern Mechanics / Electors / Apportionment, Wyoming is stated to be the least populous state as of 2011. However, Wyoming was the least populous state in all three of the 1990, 2000 and 2010 U.S. Censuses. HankW512 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified that the reference to Wyoming is based on the latest Census. What happened in previous Censuses is not relevant to that reference. SMP0328. (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you one point at a time like this, but I see that the article repeatedly uses language like "(absolute) majority of electoral votes." We are all conditioned to think of a candidate's status in an election as being based on the ratio of votes cast for the candidate to total votes cast. It was that sort of thinking that has led many to state that George Washington was elected unanimously. However, according to the Constitution, the consequent of the ratio is not votes cast but electors appointed. That means, for example, that if the number of electors who had not voted in 1789 were 37 instead of 4, George Washington would not have had enough votes to win. That's a highly unusual thing to say about someone elected unanimously. To improve the article's accuracy, I would change "majority of electoral votes" to "votes of a majority of electors" or "votes from a majority of electors". HankW512 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolute majority means "majority of the membership", so the Introduction already substantively says what you want it to say. SMP0328. (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Viewing the current electoral college

It is not possible to see both the current electoral college, sorted by number of electoral votes, and the names of the states associated with those votes, even on HD displays.

There are currently two tables on this page. One showing the current electoral college by state name, and another showing the history of the electoral college, which is sortable. I think many users would find it useful to see the current electoral college, ordered by number of votes. This is effectively not possible, for while the data is available in the sortable, chronological list, the current college's column is to the far right (off the screen for resolutions 1920 pixels wide), and the state names are to the left. Even on displays that can show the entire table at the same time, this is still not a practical way of displaying the data, as the user must look to both extremes of the table to see the complete data.

While the chronological data is interesting, I would be most users come to the page looking to see which states have the most/least electoral votes in a sortable fashion.

I propose adding a third table of three sortable columns: State name, number of electoral votes, and state population. I think that would provide many users with the data that they're looking for, and a meaningful way to view that data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Pateras (talk • contribs)

Modern mechanics and Madison

I moved a couple paragraphs about Madison's arguments in the "modern mechanics" section to the "background section," since they seem more relevant to that section. Orser67 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What plan included what came to be known as the electoral college?

The New Jersey plan came to be known as the electoral college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3692:CAD0:C11E:B88:647F:34BA (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No one plan is the Electoral College. The Electoral College came about through a series of compromises. SMP0328. (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Requirements for qualification

What are the requirements to qualify as an elector? Can anyone become an elector? I have read the whole article and there were vague allusions to the existence of requirements to qualify, yet those requirements were not enumerated in the article. Please, if you are skilled in editing articles, and have the required information, add the info to the article. 67.206.183.244 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In each State, each party nominates a slate of electors. Any requirements would be established by the parties and the States. The only Constitutional requirement is that a person is holding any elective or appointive federal office can not be an elector (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2). SMP0328. (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no constitutional requirement for political parties to have any involvement at all in this. Article II, Clause 2 of the constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, [...]" (emphasis added). The date when those appointments are to take place is set by 3 U.S.C. § 1 as the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article already explains this. SMP0328. (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My comment was made as a response to yours, but was also intended to inform the anon to whom you responded. I thought it useful to point out that political parties play no part in the constitutionally mandated processes which are the bedrock of the system, but only come into play at the level of the individual States (and, now, in D.C.). The article does contain this info, but I don't think that it makes this very clear. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Electoral College (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150111122943/http://electoralvote.com/gpage3.html to http://electoralvote.com/gpage3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120531013226/http://www.boldnebraska.org/mccoy_fail to http://www.boldnebraska.org/mccoy_fail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bold Nebraska link works, but the Electoral Vote link is still a dead link and I have tagged it as such. The Electoral Vote source should be replaced. SMP0328. (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Framers and the District Plan

Dan56789 makes an edit removing the Framer’s assumption that the district system would be used for the Electoral College system, saying, that the “reference does not support it”, yet,Chang wrote, p.208, "Second, the Framers believed that the states would employ the district system to assign electoral votes, rather than the winner-take-all rule.” Not sure what is going on here, other than an unsourced disagreement with a published article in the Harvard Journal on Legislation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @@TheVirginiaHistorian: for the opportunity to explain my edit. I checked the Chang document you mention; for support of the claim in question, he cites a paper by Whitaker and Neale, "at 4-5" (see Chang's note 26). I checked this source and found no such assertion. My belief is that the Framers left it entirely up to the states and did not assume the district method would be used. It may be worth noting that Chang was only a J.D. candidate at the time of writing, so his paper may not be very reliable. If it is true that the Framers made such an assumption, it should be possible to find more support for the claim. User:Dan56789 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2015

For WP's purposes, support by a cited source for an article assertion cannot be falsified by arguing that the source cited got it wrong. If the cited source meets WP:RS criteria and does support the assertion, that's generally good enough. If the cited source does not cite their sources, that's OK. If the cited source does cite their sources, arguing that the sources they cited do not provide sufficient support goes too far. In this case, the reference (Chang) does support the assertion in the article, and that's as far as it goes. I know that this has been discussed to death several times, but I haven't been able to quickly put my finger on one of those past discussions; perhaps someone else will do that.

My guess is that Chang intended his notes 26 and 27 respectively to point to sources of more detailed information regarding the district system and the winner-take-all rule rather than intending note 26 to provide support for his assertions regarding assumptions and anticipations of the Framers.

If you think that Chang got it wrong, that's WP:OR on your part. However, WP:DUE provides a mechanism for supporting an assertion that Chang got it wrong by citing other RSs which disagree. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, Virginia and Massachusetts, early on the largest states, began with single member Electoral College districts in Virginia, two more than Congressional Districts of approximately equal population, each compactly drawn about water sheds, and in Massachusetts, the legislature chose from among the top two candidates in each Congressional District. In any case, Adams received votes for electors in western Virginia districts, Federalists were elected to Congress from western Virginia, Jeffersonian received votes for electors in western Massachusetts districts, Republicans were elected to Congress from western Massachusetts.

As political machines developed, the states’ eastern majorities both Massachusetts Federalists and Virginian Republicans resorted to winner-take-all electors and gerrymandering to dominate the national process in presidential elections and Congressional caucuses. A district plan in today’s largest state, California, would result in a divide close to the popular vote there, but gerrymandering elsewhere across the country would result in a gross disparity unless every state thus becoming contested would result in different Congressional District turnouts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback about Wikipedia standards. I still think this section is misleading, and I would note that:

1. The Harvard Journal on Legislation is student-edited. I can't tell if this means it's considered a reliable source, but I would think (and hope) not. As I previously noted, Chang was a student when the article was written, and he is not someone who has published extensively; in fact, this is the only article by him that I've found.
2. The district system was used by only 2 of 10 states in the first presidential election, and never by a majority of states. If it is true that the Framers expected it to be widely used, how could they have been so wrong?
3. To claim that someone "assumed" something seems to lack verifiability, since people usually do not record their assumptions. In fact, Chang used the word "believed"; the word "assumptions" was chosen by the Wikipedia editor who added this section.
4. I agree that Chang's note 27 is actually the more relevant one, not note 26. Here he relies on the book The People's President, by Peirce and Longley, which says (pp. 45-46), "Popular choice of electors by district was the system personally favored by many of the nation's most distinguished early statesmen, including Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and Daniel Webster." Peirce and Longley cite the book The Electoral College by Lucius Wilmerding (1958) in support of this claim. Note that Daniel Webster was born in 1782 and thus was five years old at the time of the Constitutional Convention. A look at Wilmerding's book reveals a longer list of notables (pp. 57-58): "This fourth plan [popular election by district], in one or another of its modifications, was that which most of the reformers favored. It was repeatedly advocated by the leading statesmen of both parties--by Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Gallatin, Bayard, King, Macon, J. Q. Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Hayne, Webster, and many others. It was approved, as Macon rightly said, by almost all the states." Martin Van Buren was also born in 1782. It is clear from preceding pages that Wilmerding is writing about efforts to reform the Electoral College in the 1810s and 1820s.
5. Given the subject of Chang's article, I think his main point was probably that the Framers did not anticipate that the general ticket (winner-take-all) system would be so widely used. I suspect he enlisted Peirce and Longley's claim about "early statesmen" without attending carefully enough to the chronology. (The question is not about what the Framers believed later; it's about what they thought in 1787.)
6. In Federalist no. 39, Madison writes, "The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters," which sounds to me like he means that each state would do it however they saw fit. In a similar vein, Peirce and Longley write (p. 24): "Interestingly, there was no debate in the convention on the elector apportionment formula recommended by the Committee of Eleven. Nor was there any debate on how the state legislatures should or would select electors--whether they would appoint the electors themselves, require that they be chosen by popular vote in districts, or provide for popular vote statewide. This knotty problem, which would cause endless debates and maneuvers in the state legislatures in the ensuing years, was completely ignored. The legislatures were simply granted complete discretion in the matter."

So I think this section should be re-phrased, and the first point should be changed to say that the Framers did not anticipate winner-take-all, instead of saying that they assumed the district system. Dan56789 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Good work Dan. The framers did not anticipate winner-take-all, and most states chose electors by legislature until the early 1800s, when they split between winner take all and district plans. BTW Framers were never monolithic, James Madison of Virginia favored single member districts, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania wanted direct popular election nationally from the start. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Dan56789 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing subsection title from “Defending slavery” to ”Eclipsing slavery"

My recent copy edit at “Defending slavery” included a change of subsection title to “Eclipsing slavery” because the article is about the Electoral College which inexorably marched to the end of slave-power influence in the selection of president by the incremental eclipse of slave-holding slave states and of slave-holding state population — the two components of a state’s Electoral College vote.

"Any advantage from the Constitution-mandated apportionment that initially favored slave-holding states was wiped out by the superior population growth of free labor family farms and immigration in the northern states. After the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting three-fifths of persons held as slaves for apportionment. Beginning with the first census, Electoral College votes began to eclipse the electoral basis supporting slave-power in the choice of the U.S. president.

Footnote: Apportionment by State (PDF), House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. Unlike the votes taken in the Electoral College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. But subsequently, an unbroken chain of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the Civil War. end-footnote

"In the presidential election of 1800, while Jefferson received more Electoral College votes than Adams, the difference came from Jefferson’s wider national appeal, and not from a “solid South” of slave-holder states which would develop thirty years later. Jefferson received eleven more votes in free-soil states than Adams did in slave-holding states, three more than Adams’ margin job defeat. Even though free-soil states maintained an Electoral College advantage of fourteen votes in 1800, Adams lost by eight.

Footnote: Tally of Electoral Votes fort he 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801, National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. Jefferson received twenty Electoral College votes from free soil states (NY - 12 of 12, PA - 8 of 15), while Adams received nine votes from slave-holding states (MD - 5 of 10, NC - 4 of 12). The Electoral College advantage for the northern free-soil states was maintained in 1800, though reduced from a Constitution-mandated margin of twenty-three to a 1790 census advantage of fourteen — Jefferson did not “win big” due to the Three-fifths Clause in the Constitution. end-footnote

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit at "Eclipsing slavery" for clarity

My copy edit at "Eclipsing slavery for clarity is as follows:

"Nevertheless, some critics have alleged that the Electoral College was originally advocated by Southern states in an effort to defend slavery. Legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar wrote in a 2016 article in the popular Time magazine, that the three-fifths slave population included Congressional reapportionment required by the Constitutional Convention, "Virginia emerged as the big winner...with...more than a quarter of the [votes] needed to win an election in the first round [for Washington's first presidential election in 1788]." Following the 1790 census, the most populous state in the 1790 Census was Virginia, a slave state with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.

Footnote: First Census of the United States, Chapter III in “A Century of Population Growth from the first Census, volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia’s total population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633.(p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p.82. end-footnote

"The "free" state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.”

Footnote: Amar, Akhil (November 10, 2016). "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists". Time. end-footnote

"Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population.

Footnote: <ref>Tally of Electoral Votes fort he 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801, National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019. end-footnote

"In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, a Virginia slaveowner, was elected president over the incumbent John Adams, whose home state of Massachusetts had abolished slavery, with Jefferson netting twenty free-soil votes, about the same a Virginia’s twenty-one votes, or 25.4% of Jefferson’s Electoral College total count. According to Akhil Reed Amar, Jefferson’s three percent margin would have been erased by ignoring the existence of slaves in the Census and Adams would have been victorious, despite a scenario with Adams losing 14% of his total votes from two slave-holding states: Maryland (split 50-50) and North Carolina (split 67-33 for Jefferson).

Footnote: Amar, Akhil (November 10, 2016). "The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists". Time. end-footnote

"As historian Eric Foner writes, the Three-Fifths Compromise "greatly enhanced the number of southern votes in the House of Representatives and therefore in the electoral college," adding that twelve out of sixteen presidential elections between 1788 and 1848 resulted in the election of a Southern slaveowner.

Footnote: Foner, Eric (2017). Give Me Liberty! An American History (5th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton and Company. p. 269. ISBN 978-0-393-61418-3. end-footnote

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)