Jump to content

Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

Error in Pennsylvania 1820 electoral votes

I believe there is an error in the number of electoral votes PA has in the table for the 1820 election. It says PA had 25 electoral votes when the wiki page (among other sources) for the election says it had 24.

This fix would all make the sum value accurate. Could a mod or someone with access privileges make the change?

72.76.87.98 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. That was the value in the source. YBG (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OP again, I believe I've found another error with Kentucky in the 1868 election. Other sources say it should have 11 electoral votes, not 12. Again, it would make the electoral votes add up correctly for that year.

72.76.87.98 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Also verified in source. YBG (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OP, with the last errors I hope

In the 1892, 1896, and 1900 election tabs, South Carolina should have 9 electoral votes instead of 8, while Maryland should have 8 electoral votes instead of 6. That's all the errors I got. Thanks to whatever mod can change it for me 72.76.87.98 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. And this one, too. YBG (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Who can write this article in something approaching Simple English?

Perhaps American citizens understand all this jargon because they hear it all the time. Most readers of English Wikipedia may live in other countries and read pages to find out something new. So, what on earth does, "Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president" mean? Francis Hannaway (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

See Ticket (election). SMP0328. (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

TCFP (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eteethan(talk) 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

In the Apportionment section, "This is because each of these states are entitled to one representative and two senators." should be, "This is because each of these states is entitled to one representative and two senators." "Each are" should be "each is". Oakb (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Oakb (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: I'm prettttttttttty sure it is right the way it is...right? --allthefoxes (Talk) 02:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No. "Each" is singular, equivalent to "one". Would you say, "One of these states are entitled to one representative and two senators"? Oakb (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Never mind, took care of it myself. Oakb (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Error in Electoral Vote by State table

Someone put the 1864 votes in as text, not as numbers. Try sorting ascending/descending for 1864, you'll see what I mean. 155.188.123.20 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Technical error in sorting for 1864

There's some type of error that affects the ascending and descending sorting for 1864 in the large chronological table - it sorts by the first digit instead of the vote count. All the other years sort accurately, both ascending and descending. I can't figure out the problem in the code. There is a recent message on February 1, although it refers to another message about text instead of numbers, that I can't find. If somebody can fix the problem, I'd appreciate it - it's probably something simple that I'm just not seeing. (If you could let me know what it is, I'd appreciate it even more!) Thanks in advance. Ira Leviton (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is related to the fact that the Southern states, between secession and 'readmission', are marked with an explicit '0' with a sort key {{sort|0.1|0}} so that they will sort separately from the states not yet admitted, which are marked {{not polled}}. This, combined with the fact that Alabama is the first row in the table, disrupts the automatic recognition of numeric sorting. I fixed this by adding a leading zero in the sort key for single-digit entries, e.g., {{sort|03|3}}. No sort key is needed for double-digit entries.
I would have expected the same issue to occur in 1868 when there are still three southern states without representation in the electoral college, but apparently there is no problem because Alabama, which is the first row, has been readmitted.
It seems possible that this fix may not work on all browsers. If further problems are noted, ping me and I'll have another look at it.
(I have included some notes in comment blocks on the article space page) 09:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I signed with ~~~~~ instead of ~~~~, resulting in a time w/o my username YBG (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you - it works now. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electoral College (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Chronological tables

The chronological table shows several states 1n 1964 with 0 electoral vote. Excellomanomaniac (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are looking at the middle of that table. That part of the table refers to 1864, which was during the Civil War. Those States had claimed to have seceded, so they did not participate in that year's Presidential election. More to the right of that table you will find the stats for the 1964 election, which has no zeros. SMP0328. (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Assertion in the lead that voters elect electors

This edit caught my eye. What caught my eye, actually, was not the change made by the edit but the assertion in the lead that voters elect electors. That has been the case for considerable time, of course, as is explained in the article body. However, it seems to me that it is a misleading oversimplification to put it that way in the lead, inviting the inference that this is a constitutional mandate. Describing the electors as "designating intermediaries" only serves to reinforce this misleading oversimplification. In order to better summarize the content of the article in this regard, I suggest that the portion of the lead which reads, "instead they elect designated intermediaries" to instead read, "instead, since 1836, voters have elected designated intermediaries", or that some better worded revision to that effect be made in the lead. I think this would be more in line with WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. It seems to me that something also aught to be said that the Legislatures have chosen this manner to appoint their allocated electors. Don't know just how to phrase it, though, or I would probably just WP:BB. YBG (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering the information in the following paragraphs in the introduction, I copyedited the first to simplify somewhat. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

11 states that equal a majority of electoral votes

If a presidential/vice presidential candidate wins the eleven following states, he or she does not even need to be on the ballot in the other 39 states or DC to win.

California 55 Electoral Votes (EV) Texas 38 EV Florida 29 EV New York 29 EV Illinois 20 EV Pennsylvania 20 EV Ohio 18 EV Michigan 16 EV Georgia 16 EV North Carolina 15 EV New Jersey 14 EV

Total: 11 states 270 Electoral Votes

Source: From Wikipedia's Electoral Vote map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C9:C202:BFD2:A4E8:A568:96D3:D573 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking for this information to be placed in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Winner-take-all

Except for Maine and Nebraska, all states have chosen electors on a "winner-take-all" basis since the 1880s. That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state.

This is hard to understand. Take Texas as an example. I see, if I am understanding the map correctly, that here are 38 electors for Texas. Suppose 20 of them are pledged to candidate A and 18 to candidate B, and suppose A gets the most votes from the public. Then it seems that 20 electors "become electors for that state". This does not seem in any way to be "winner takes all". "Winner takes all" would mean that all 38 have to support the public's choice of candidate A. What happens to the other 18? I ask that someone knowledgeable about the procedure clarify this within the article. Thanks. 109.146.103.153 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Winner-take-all means that all of a State's electors will vote for the winner of that State's popular vote. So the winner of Texas's popular vote for President is supposed to receive all of Texas's electoral votes, subject to the possibility of faithless electors. SMP0328. (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I know what "winner-take-all" means, or should mean. However, "all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state" does not mean "all" electors. It means a subset of all electors. From the information given, it could be any number, depending on how many are pledged to that candidate. If you read again carefully what the words in the article say, and you read carefully what I have written, hopefully you will be able to see why the explanation is unclear. 109.146.103.153 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I have clarified the wording you quoted. Let me know if you have any further concerns regarding that wording. SMP0328. (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Simplicity claim for districting method

It is widely acknowledged that either the simple proportionality method or the districting method can be done by state legislation. There is no implementation problem with either. It is true that there is sometimes political motivation to change to the districting method, and almost never motivation to change to the proportional method, but that is a separate issue and should be separately discussed and cited.

I don't have time to do this properly now, so I tagged it. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I qualified the sentence using the source with, noting that it was more easily attained, "in view of major party resistance to relatively enabling third parties under the Proportional Method", and removed the tag.
Of course, the District Plan can be undercut in its democratic intent by Virginia's gerrymandering as found in Supreme Court Case, Wittman v. Personhuballah (2016), and the partisan plan in Virginia (2013) to give the two at-large Electoral votes to the winner of a majority of gerrymandered Congressional Districts -- rather than by the statewide popular vote.
The Congressional District apportionment reform proposed by the League of Women Voters using a commission has a track record in four states producing more compact districts with more competitive elections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Electors for Independent candidate

How the governor generates a list of electors from their state in the event that the voters gave a majority for independent (non-party) candidate? — Fnaq (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That would vary state by state, and ought to be specified in state law or by some body such as a state election commission which is establish by the state constitution or by state law. For one example, see https://www.azsos.gov/sites/azsos.gov/files/running_for_president_in_arizona_9-16-2015_2.0.pdf (the details could be very different in other states). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This actually ties into a greater issue. Currently (to the best of my understanding) section 3.2.2 of the article (Modern Mechanics/Electors/Selection) seems to muddle two distinct and separate issues. One, how a person is selected to be elector for a candidate - as in a) nominated somehow and b) presumably vetted or approved by the state. Two which group of such electors are actually selected by the state as its electors. See below (starting a new talk header since that's a change of subject) CapnZapp (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Would you Wtmitchell (or anyone else) be interested in summarizing this now that Nomination is its own header. Anyway, I've added a expand-section tag to encourage more details. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not well situated to undertake this. I am located in Romblon, Romblon in the Philippines. I don't have access to a decent library and, if I did, a Philippine library probably would not contain this level of detail on electoral procedures in individual U.S. states. My access to the internet is pretty bad. I did some googling, though, and I did find some info about this at https://tropicsofmeta.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/how-do-different-states-allocate-their-electoral-votes/. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. CapnZapp (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Section on Selection covers two distinct subjects

(cont'd)
I propose the section Modern Mechanics/Electors/Selection is split, or at least subdivided into two distincting subheadings. Reason: clarity and to encourage a better explanation of issues such as the one brought up by Fnaq above. For the second such subsection, "Selection" is a good-enough heading, but perhaps there is a more formal term for the procedure we can use. For the first - I don't know, "Nomination"? CapnZapp (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I should add that there is a section intimately connected to these issues: the section on alternative ways to choose electors. It's slightly strange that the "alternative" methods seem more detailed than the regular one, don't you think? CapnZapp (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done CapnZapp (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is not a regular method of choosing electors to which there are alternative methods. The situation is that in the various individual U.S. States at various points in time electors have been chosen by several alternative methods. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That suggests the current organization, with a small main explanation and then a large section on ways to select electors, isn't really optimal. Perhaps it would be better to create a "ways to select electors" article, and then start the small section off by a main template, with only a short general summary. Oh well, something for future editors to do... CapnZapp (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

too long

I think our best option is to split the last two sections "Contemporary Issues" and "Proposals" to a page/pages of their own. Your ideas? CapnZapp (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I should add that §3.2.2 "Selection" and §5 "Alternative methods of choosing electors" are intimately connected and should probably stay on the same page.CapnZapp (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose to create a new page to be named Contemporary Issues and Proposals regarding the Electoral College (United States). Thoughts? CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Two questions / considerations:
  1. How far back would you go and still consider it 'contemporary'?
  2. There are two primary POV here
    • (a) the current system is generally good and should be retained
    • (b) the current system is basically flawed and should be changed.
Of course, (b) has a number of subdivisions, but (a) vs (b) is the primary fault line, and it seems to me that to be NPOV, both (a) and (b) should be given due consideration. My question: Would this title, combined with the number of subdivisions of (b), unintentionally tend to bias the article towards (b)?
YBG (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
*shrug* I have merely mushed together the two existing headings into one title. Feel free to propose a better article name, and perhaps we can avoid having to discuss such questions. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Reiterating my proposal to move the two sections 6 & 7 (Contemporary Issues, Proposals for reform or abolition) off to a new page Contemporary Issues and Proposals regarding the Electoral College (United States) to make this article shorter. No actual changes or editorial decisions, like brought up by YBG, intended or planned. CapnZapp (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Concur. Perhaps title the new article "Electoral College (United States) reform proposals"? That way as a user types in the search box, both articles will come into view. And of course the addition of a See also entry for the new article. The Electoral College (United States) could be denominated the "Main article" at the top of the new page. I would propose both subsection #6 “Contemporary issues” and #7 “Proposals for reform or abolition” be included in the new article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Temporal paradox

In the section Electoral College (United States)#Evolution to the general ticket there seems to be an issue with the timeline. The second paragraph starts:

About thirty-five years after the Constitution was ratified, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way...

However, the third paragraph starts:

When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly.

But Hamilton died in 1804, which isn't even close to "thirty-five years after the Constitution was ratified", which would be 1822 by my arithmetic. How could he have been protesting anything?

Can someone explain the discrepancy? 216.81.81.81 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "thirty-five years", thus resolving the paradox. Thanks for pointing it out. SMP0328. (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

History | Original Plan munched up

Something munched up the wording of Article II, section 1, clause 2 in the "Original Plan" sub-section in the History section. I restored the correct wording as shown at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii to fix that. Poihths (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The capitalization should match what's in the quoted clause of the Constitution, so I have reverted your edit. Keep in mind that capitalization was very different when the Constitution was written (1787). SMP0328. (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

7.1 Bayh-Celler...

"quickly filibustered" - that's "kind-of" a paradoxon, isn't it?--Mideal (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mideal, if someone moves quickly to start a filibuster is it quickly filibustered, filibustered quickly, or something else? While we likely could clean up the wording I'd rather do so by adding more detail such as who started the filibuster and who maintained it. It seems from the context that the filibuster must have started September 8, 1970 and continued to at least September 29, 1970. The NY Times link for the "Thereafter" sentence is dated September 30th and so I assume the filibuster ended on either the 29th or 30th. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising"

Is this only local (intra-state) TV networks? Or money spent by the candidates' local offices? If we add up the total number of dollar signs and multiply by one million dollars, is that the total amount spent by both campaigns on TV advertising? This is really unclear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are asking questions this graphic was not designed to answer. Its purpose is to illustrate the general (and undetailed) notion "candidates focus on swing states"; not to provide actual statistics or exact numbers. So I would encourage you to look elsewhere for the numbers you seek, such as the source for the raw data. In my opinion, the graph should not be expected to provide these numbers. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not looking for answers to questions about real world issues. That's not what article talk pages are for. I'm asking why the article states that the chart indicates something that it doesn't appear to actually indicate (if it did it would be a pretty useless chart, because it could be interpreted any of several ways). Hijiri 88 (聖やや)
Please consider next time not asking questions that you intend to be rhetorical. Do note both I and Mark Kupper below did believe you were interested in the actual data. Moving forward, I suggest you instead explain a) what you believe the graph says it indicates b) how you arrive at that conclusion c) what you believe the graph really indicates d) how you arrive at that conclusion. That way, you will have explained your interpretation and thought process in a transparent and straightforward manner that allows us to constructively proceed directly to discussing and potentially fixing your issue. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88, the chart and its caption seem very clear to me. Can you be more precise about what you mean by "the article states that the chart indicates something that it doesn't appear to actually indicate?" Exactly which sentences in the article are you referring to? I interpreted the chart as showing visually how the visits and money were greatly concentrated in a few swing states. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88, the link for the source of the raw data was broken. I fixed this. It's http://archive.fairvote.org/whopicks/ though I don't think it answers your first two questions. I believe the source for the $ marks is a table titled "2004 Peak Season Campaign Attention Index" and seems to be the combined total of the campaigns. For all the states where I could count the $ signs the count matched "Money Spent" column value in the table. I've made that table available as a Google doc here. I did not attempt to verify the number of hands against the # of visits column which is in the same table. The source article has sub-tables for the Democratic spending/attention and Republican spending/attention for each state. I did not attempt to verify that the "2004 Peak Season Campaign Attention Index" is the sum of the tables of for the two parties. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to this issue, I found

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

and specifically

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/explanation_map.png

The site might have an agenda, but perhaps the infographic is legit? CapnZapp (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

CapnZapp, that site credits fairvote.org which is the source we are using. It at least makes a case that fairvote.org may be a WP:RS. See very bottom of http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation for the credit which is embedded in a screen shot. The URL they provided as a source is either a 404 today or I made a typo entering it in here.[4] --Marc Kupper|talk 22:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

Many dates say October but should be November. And there are factual inaccuracies such as winning the popular vote. Votes have not been totally counted but it appears Trump will win the popular vote as well. This needs to be changed. See for example Ref14 which would appear to no longer be correct.

2600:8807:DF00:100:A022:4685:5E2A:456B (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. Regarding October, please be more specific. I looked at every instance of "October" in the article and I didn't see any that stood out as being obviously wrong. Maybe you can be more specific.
  2. Regarding factual inaccuracies, if you think any specific fact has been invalidated by more recent information, please provide a link to a reliable source that would provide more up-to-date information.
  3. Regarding Ref 14, the headline states that Clinton "is winning the popular vote", not "has won the popular vote". So it should stand until someone provides a more recent reliable source with more recent data.

YBG (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia site: The United States Electoral College

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, at 9:00 p.m., I visited the Wikipedia site "The United States Electoral College." The last sentence of the fourth paragraph read, "On five occasions, most recently in the 2016 presidential election, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election." Fifteen minutes later, 9:15 p.m., I revisited the site, and the same sentence read: "On four [sic] occasions, the most recently in the 2000 [sic] presidential election, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election." How did this happen and what is the meaning of the Wikipedia process? ---- Ken Glaser logbook@usa.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDDD:3820:9104:3FD1:A08:C024 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been corrected back to five, the five presidents presumably being John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, G.W. Bush (2000) and, you know, the most recent one. As for "the meaning of the Wikipedia process", although I was not involved in this one, I can tell you that the Wikipedia process is that people make edits, and sometimes they are incorrect, and then other people make other edits, and hopefully the last edit is correct and nobody changes it back. Neutron (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Electoral College has not voted until Dec. 19th. This is not a done deal. REF #15 on page.72.28.219.80 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Evolution to modern system not described

Under "Evolution to the general ticket", the article describes how states began to use the general ticket scheme, but it does not mention any dates. I would like to know when exactly states started to adopt the general ticket mechanism, although I suppose different states started doing so at different times.

That section also describes how Madison and Hamilton vehemently opposed the general ticket, with Hamilton even drafting an Amendment to mandate the district plan. However, then it breaks off suddenly without any apparent resolution. What happened to the Amendment draft?

In general, the issue I have with this section is that there was an important transition that took place from the district plan to the general ticket, but it's not clear when it took place, started or ended. When did the general ticket become the de facto process? -- 2001:984:9396:1:F521:E689:E2C5:27DE (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

In 1789, at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with PA and MD; VA and DE used a district plan by popular vote, and in the five other states casting Electoral College votes, state legislatures chose. By 1800, VA and RI voted at-large, KY, MD and NC noted popularly by district, and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804, there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.[1]
States using state legislature to choose presidential electors have included CT, DE, GA, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, SC, TN, VT, NC, SC. LA. By 1832, only SC used the state legislature, and it abandoned the method after 1860.[2] States using popular vote by district have included KY, MD, NC, VA, MA, TN, IL, ME, MO, NY. By 1832 there was only MD, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though MI adopted one for 1892 only.[3]
"Since 1836, the statewide, winner-take-all popular vote for electors has been the almost universal practice.” Currently ME from 1972 and Nebraska from 1996 use the district plan, with two at-large electors going for the statewide popular vote winner.[4]
  1. ^ Presidential Elections 1789-1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p.9
  2. ^ Presidential Elections 1789-1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p.9-10
  3. ^ Presidential Elections 1789-1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p.10-11
  4. ^ Presidential Elections 1789-1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, ISBN 978-1-5680-2065-5, p.11
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just the Facts

Electoral College has not voted until Dec. 19. This is not a done deal. REF #15 on page. 72.28.219.80 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

But the good thing about the Electoral College is that it gives a decisive result that enables the partisan losers to concede with dignity, upholding peaceable transfer of power and maintaining the moral authority to serve the country as a loyal opposition. Faithless electors have not altered the outcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's a very done deal - and this comment does not aid in the betterment of the article, but instead is merely a WP:FORUM issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.35.251 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

First, it's not warranted to be mentioned in the lede. They are by their very nature outliers and the lede should be a summary. Second, they cannot be stated without qualification, at least the more recent ones with absentee voting, as many states do not count the absentee votes if it's statistically impossible for them to overturn the current vote tally. The number given, then, is, at best, an estimation 71.89.117.69 (talk)

Agreed. removed form the lede as the POV is not constitutionally relevant to the topic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction

I would like to add in some information about one of the major reasons the Founders talked about with regard to why they chose to go with an Electoral College. So far, it is not mentioned in the article.

The issues of cabal and corruption, primarily. George Mason, Pierce Butler, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson and James Madison all discussed this, some also talking about intrigue and faction. Progressingamerica (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

[5] [6] [7] [8]

These are references to large amounts of information that is not presented in an encyclopedic form. I like the idea of your proposed contribution, but how would you word it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cartogram

A confused friend of mine, who consults Wikipedia only casually, has just pointed out to me, in his confusion, what I think is a significant issue.

The cartogram just below the political map at the top of this entry has a legend that reads "2016 Electoral Vote."

In fact, the Electoral College vote has *not* taken place yet, and will not until December 19. This cartogram is simply a projected vote, or a prediction, and should be labelled as such.

In fact, the political map above the cartogram is in error as well. The legend to the political map reads: "In red: 306 Trump electors from 30 states + ¼ ME (2nd CD). In blue: 232 Clinton electors from 19 states + ¾ ME and D.C."

No, the map actually shows that Associated Press has *not* called either Michigan or New Hampshire, which is why they are in grey rather than red or blue. The map does *not* show 306 Trump electors, nor does it show 232 Clinton electors. It shows 290 for Trump and 228 for Clinton, with Michigan and New Hampshire's electoral votes still to be determined and hence greyed out.

The cartogram, imho, should be re-labelled to signify that is is a projection or prediction, and the legend on the political map re-written to reflect Associated Press's actual tally of the electoral vote as of today.

We will not know the "2016 Electoral Vote" until December 19, when the electors of the Electoral College actually vote.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and Congress certifies the result. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 maps don't agree

it looks like one map shows Hillary with Wisconsin and one gives it to Donald 162.248.205.72 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the two maps at the head of the article, it looks to me as both show Wisconsin as having gone to the Republican party. However, one caption gives the vote totals as 279 vs. 228 (for a total of 507) and an inset in the the other map says 306 vs. 232. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, the caption of the first table says 30 states went Republican and 20 went Democratic. Counting here, I see 19.75 Democratic and and 30.25 Republican (I must be miscounting, since the total should be 51, including DC which is shown on the map). Also, the second map shows Maine's four Democratic electoral votes as Democratic, but this says that one electoral vote from Maine's second congressional district was won by the Republican party. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the maps are fixed, but the caption under the first says "316" for Trump instead of "306" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.115.142.44 (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Faithless Elector

Currently a disagreement. I included by reversion the vast majority of legal scholars that an elector is constitutionally protected in voting his/her conscience, even if it was against his pledge. This is constitutional law, and should be in this overview

Do you have sources to back up what you say? Also, keep in mind that a dissenting opinion is not legally binding; it's just the opinion of those joining that dissent. SMP0328. (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Electoral College Success

It would be worthwhile inserting a paragraph or discussion area for how often the electoral college correctly elected a president based on a majority vote for a candidate in excess of 50% of the voters. I believe but have not spent the research effort to verify that when a clear winning majority greater than 50% of the popular vote, the electoral college always supported this majority. It is only in unclear outcomes that plurality becomes an issue and is often dealt with emotionally instead of mathematically. Whereas the electoral college provides a math solution. Further if we were to look at each state with its electoral votes and assume that those who vote for that state effectively cast ballots for their states population including non-voters. With this assumption if we assign the total population of the state as allocated to the candidate for whom the voters of that state selected, i believe without having run through the math that the result would almost match the same outcome as the electoral college. Further, all non-voters by default have given permission to those voting to make the choices for them. This is as it always has been when you allow others to make your choices for you. No system is perfect and in today's situation when we have two people who are both opposed by more than 50% of the population ie 53% voted against Trump and 52% voted against Clinton, some methodology needs to be employed to pick a winner. Perhaps in any election where no one gets greater than 50% the choice should go to the House/Senate for determination. Florida bob (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

In the "Contemprary Issues" section - under the "Support", "Prevents an urban-centric victory" sections - an argument is made about the weight of the votes of heavily populated urban areas:

"...heavily populated urban areas, and pushes candidates to make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.[123] They believe that adoption of the popular vote would shift the disproportionate focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.[124]"

Proponents of a national popular vote for president dismiss such arguments, pointing out that the combined population of the 50 biggest cities only amounts to 15% of the population,[125][126] and that candidates in popular vote elections for governor and U.S. Senate, and for statewide allocation of electoral votes, do not ignore voters in less populated areas.[127]"

[125] is sourced from "https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/12/ron-paul/hands-off-the-electoral-college/". This article does not mention cities specifically, in fact, it neither mentions the words "rural" nor "urban" in the text. Therefore, the paraphrasing is incorrect.

The statistic from [124] is sourced from "http://archive.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=5". However, this is not an accurate statistic of urban population, since this number describes population only in cities. Cities are but one subset of the category of urban areas. According to the 2010 Census,

"The urban areas of the United States for the 2010 Census contain 249,253,271 people, representing 80.7% of the population, and rural areas contain 59,492,276 people, or 19.3% of the population" [Source: https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971] Edit: Apparently this link does not work any more. These numbers comes from a quick google search of "US urban population".

A more detailed classification criteria of urban and rural areas is give by the Census Bureau here: [9]

Finally, the sentence citing [127] cleverly interprets its source to make the point that candidates "do not ignore voters in less populated areas". The source does indeed mention that the campaigns in 2008 visited the sparsely populated 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, however the point is made because the electoral votes of the state are awarded by district. The source goes on to say: "When votes matter (even in an area representing only 1/4% of the nation's population), presidential candidates vigorously solicit those areas for votes. When votes don't matter, they ignore those areas." The argument being made, therefore, is that candidates visit areas which carry significant weight attached to their state's electoral vote tally. This sentence, I believe, is twisting words.

Using this new statistic, I propose that the cited section be changed to accommodate this fact. For example, replace the text I quoted with:

"...heavily populated urban areas, and pushes candidates to make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.[123] They believe that adoption of the popular vote would shift the disproportionate focus to urban areas, giving less weight to rural areas.[124]. For instance, according to the 2010 US Census, urban areas represent 80.7% of the population while rural areas represent 19.3% of the total population, [Source: https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971]"

REMOVE THIS, OR EDIT FOR ACCURACY, IT IS INVALID: Proponents of a national popular vote for president contest this argument, pointing out that the combined population of the 50 biggest cities only amounts to 15% of the population,[125][126] and that candidates in popular vote elections for governor and U.S. Senate, and for statewide allocation of electoral votes, do not ignore voters in less populated areas.[127]"


Apobz (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 December 2016

The Electoral College has elected the person that won the popular vote in every election but 5, not 4. You need to add 2016 to the list. Stevezeezoo (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

General gripes

"Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections.[20]" Small in population or as a proportion of franchised citizens? Slave states were huge in the first sense, small in the second. Alleged support for this claim in the article is essentially a dummy footnote. The author of the quote is just referencing somebody else's unsubstantiated opinion to support his own opinion. This seems pretty typical of the article, unfortunately. Hearsay reigns, colored by political bias. From the history section it is impossible to come away with a clear idea of who originated the idea for the Electoral College and why, and why the College finally was written into the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton supported the idea after the fact on anti-populist grounds, but the primary reason for the College appears to have been to appease slave states (the article suggests as much). Why is the article edit-protected? I am not qualified to edit it, but an article of this importance deserves the input and advice of a recognized constitutional scholar (like Akhil Reed Amar, for instance, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furdeal (talk • contribs) December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin, your analysis fails on al counts. “Small" states were from all regions, generally without prospect of western expansion who feared for their future weight in the House, regardless of slave holdings. The largest at the time in the House of Representatives were VA 10, PA 8. MA 8, NY 6.
The “small” state delegations were CT 5, NC 5, SC 5, NJ 4, GA 3, DE 1, RI 1. That’s where the votes in the Constitutional Convention were found for a Senate of with the states given equal representation. They were against delegates such as Madison (VA) and Wilson (PA) who wanted a) no Senate at all, b) a Senate based on population, or c) three classes of Senate delegation size, big (5) medium (3) and small (1).
The Electoral College is made up electors apportioned by population as the House of Representatives, and by place as the Senate, now including three for DC — not by slavery. When slavery was abolished, slavery was not a factor in the Electoral College. The idea of the Electoral College came out of a legislative committee meeting in secret, hard to attribute who came up with it, exactly.
The House of Representatives is meant to represent populations equally, not voters, recently confirmed by a Supreme Court ruling striking down one of the Texas Republican gerrymandering schemes. The southern states gave in to a disadvantage by representing only three-fifths slave population based on the proportion of per capita taxes advantage they had enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation.
You fail to offer any counter sources of your own. As to your general reference, generally Constitutional lawyers are not well grounded in historical context; they would be more familiar with court precedents, such as the Texas case that would have helped you on your voter versus population misunderstanding of what “one man, one vote” means. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
To TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs): I'm no historian, particularly as regards US history, but I've done enough independent reading that I had no trouble with the term small states. I can see how others might, though, on encountering that term without clarifying context. Perhaps some clarification similar to the lead sentence under Disproportionate Voting Power Given to the States in http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm might be useful in the bit of the article requoted above.
To Furdeal (talk · contribs): It would probably be useful to take a look at the Virginia Plan and Connecticut Compromise articles.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The measures of central tendency show the weight of the Electoral College is based primarily on equal populations, with 435 votes derived from population, and 103 from place. Your Fairvote source WY outlier is just that. So in the real world, there is no successful national party, win or lose, spending three times per voter in WY (2 Rs) vs. TX (25 Rs, 11Ds) combined for president, senate and congress.
To better understand why this is so, a good primer for understanding statistics is the classic, How to lie with statistics. As your source says, “ironically enough though, there is a study that concludes that larger states are actually at an advantage in the Electoral College”.
The first sentence of the Fairvote source directly contradicts the historical facts found as sourced to Fairvote in the fourth paragraph. Perhaps a more reliable source can be found to improve the article, such as Pauline Maier’s Ratification: the people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788.
To Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) The sentence might be copyedited to, “Delegates from small geographically hemmed in states such as New Hampshire, New Jersey and South Carolina generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that large states would continue to amass superior populations and end up permanently controlling presidential elections in the future.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
To Furdeal (talk · contribs), Wtmitchell (talk · contribs): The Committee of Postponed Matters advanced the Electoral College in late August. It was divided three small state delegates to two large state delegates, made up of Chairman David Brearley of geographically bounded NJ, John Dickenson of DE and Abraham Baldwin of GA, a native of CT who voted as a small state man, and they were joined by large state delegates Gouvernour Morris of PA, James Madison of VA. See Joseph C. Morton, Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: a biographical dictionary ISBN 978-0-3133-3021-6, p. 23-24. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
To Furdeal (talk · contribs), Wtmitchell (talk · contribs): oops. it is also true, despite scholarly source from Joseph C. Morton above, I find in Madison’s Notes, that the Electoral College is reported out of the Committee of Eleven (one delegate from each state in attendance appointed by ballot, including Mr. Baldwin of GA) to the Committee of the Whole on Sep 4 and amended through Sep 6. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 December 2016

The 2016 date should be added in the lede like this: ... "after the second Wednesday in December. In 2016, the College will meet on December 19.[1] - Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Key dates, National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register
Why? This is an encyclopedia article, it's not news of information that will soon be out of date. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump election

The election of 2016 is a fifth example of one in which a candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanganuimatt (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This will be put into the article on January 20, assuming Donald Trump takes office at that time. SMP0328. (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Just as a matter of nomenclature, Trump won sufficient slates of electors in November, but they convene as the electoral college on December 19, 2016 to vote, so Trump hasn't won any electoral college votes as of yet. Furthermore the electoral college is more in play this election cycle as a deliberative body and less a rubber stamp, so stay tuned. kencf0618 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The article again wrongly refers to this election. Even though the article is locked, an admin made this change. The whole point of having the article locked was so this edit warring would stop, but now an admin has taken advantage of the locking so that now the article can (in violation of policy) be used to predict the future. This edit should be reverted ASAP. SMP0328. (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 December 2016

Under the "See Also" section, I'd like to just a link to the Wikipedia article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_Electoral_Votes_Per_Popular_Vote". SCU44 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The unassessed article Number of Electoral Votes Per Popular Vote has no reliable sources cited, and it is tagged as possibly original research. These considerations do not recommend it to this page's "See also" section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed consensus language on small states at Convention

Existing: "Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections.[20]”

Proposal (a): withdrawn. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus Proposal (b): Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area such as Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.[1] At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives with each state delegation casting one vote would decide most elections.[2] -- from Alanscottwalker, Wtmitchell and TVH. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Madison, James (1966). Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. The Norton Library. p. 294. ASIN B003G6AKX2.
  2. ^ Patrick, John J.; Pious, Richard M.; Ritchie, Donald A. (2001). The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-19-514273-0.

Discussion:

  • Editor Furdeal (talk · contribs) above in unsourced speculation, wondered whether “small” state referred to “small in population or as a proportion of franchised citizens”, imagining that all slave states voted as large states along with Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) agreed that some clarification was merited, so I offer Proposal (a) for discussion prior to an edit request. Instead of VA outnumbering DE 10:1 as in the House by population, VA would outnumber DE only 4:1 in the Electoral College as proposed, which the DE delegation considered an accommodation to their small state interests. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Generally good, so yes, put it in as an improvement to better define "small". But I would strike much of the first sentence and just say, 'with smaller populations or land area to expand, such as . . .' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm no historian and don't necessarily disagree, but it needs a supporting cite. [10] might serve, but I am limited to online sources and am not able to preview enough of it to tell. [11] looks good to me. Two sources which I looked at ([12], [13]) do appear to quibble or disagree, and might need to be given due weight. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps, "At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates if no majority were found in the Electoral College, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives with each state delegation casting one vote, would decide most elections." Reference John J. Patrick, et al., The Oxford Guide to the United States Government, 2001, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1951-4273-0, p. 208. I'll craft an alternative proposal (b). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I've added citation of a supporting source to your Proposal (b). I'm not sure whether you mean for your first "Note" to remain in or to come out. I'm OK either way (I would probably leave the note body in but loose the "Note" identifier), but the supporting cite ought to remain -- probably replacing the existing cite of this source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the first supporting cite, and used states voting for equal state Senate representation on July 2, July 7 and July 16 during the Philadelphia Convention: CT, NJ and MD. So relative to our initial inquiry in a Talk section above, we have a small state from New England, the Middle Colonies and the South to clarify. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Map

May we add Pence & Kaine to the Map caption, as they will be receiving electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Only if we do it Twelfth Amendment style: designate who received Presidential electoral votes and who received VP electoral votes. SMP0328. (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Just go by how it's done at United States presidential election, 2016 -- GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

1824 election

The last sentence of the third paragraph reads, "In most elections, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most popular votes nationwide, except in four elections, 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000." May I suggest that it instead read, "... has elected the candidate who also received..."? Adding the word "also" shows that there is no dependency between the electors' votes and the popular votes. 138.163.0.42 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think 1824 should not be included in that list. In that election, some States did not have their people vote for President. Instead, their State legislature voted for those Electors. So the 1824 popular vote did not represent all the States. How the people of the States in which the Electors were legislatively selected would have voted is unknown. The 1824 election should be referenced, but it should not be put on a par with the other elections mentioned in the quoted material. BTW, no objection to "also". SMP0328. (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
But even so, the Electoral College in 1824 did not elect the candidate who had received the most popular votes nationwide (Jackson received the most popular votes nationwide, but was not elected president by the EC). Perhaps a [ note ], if you really think all the detail is needed? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Jackson won the most popular votes in those states which recorded popular votes, but to say "most popular votes nationwide" would be misleading as there was no nationwide popular vote. For the same reason, while 1824 should be mentioned in a footnote, IMO it does not belong in the list in the main text. YBG (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, then just take "nationwide" out - I'll go along that "nationwide" must only have a precise connotation if such is insisted upon, but the popular votes in 1824 were from New England to the Deep South and from the Atlantic to the Missouri, so the width of the nation at that time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd say leave "nationwide" in and put 1824 in the footnotes. YBG (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
And what will you do with 1789, 1792, 1796, 1800, etc? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The pre-Twelfth Amendment elections are like the 1824 election: some States did not popularly elect their Electors, so there was no nationwide popular vote. SMP0328. (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So, now they all have to go in that ever larger footnote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Did any of the pre-Twelfth Amendment elections result in the popular vote winner losing in the Electoral College? SMP0328. (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The objection is to "nationwide" vote, which would include elections well past the twelfth amendment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Drop “nationwide”. There is of course, no “nationwide” vote ever in the United States. The national legislature is elected in single member districts apportioned among the states by equal populations since the abolition of slavery, with every state having at least one member of Congress, thus geographically spanning the extent of the nation state. There is no "nationwide" allocation of votes by party, the government arises directly from the people in particular places. The presiding officer of the United States as provided for in the Constitution is chosen among the people in the states by the method chosen by their state legislature. One may artificially aggregate a “popular” vote only following the rise of democracy in the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras.

That vote among the people in states in the Electoral College is allocated on a rule weighted to equal populations in the House of Representatives, now weighted 435 Electoral College votes for population versus 103 for places. In national elections for Congress each two years, between 30% and 50% of the eligible population choses to vote. Voters and electors virtually represent the communities they live among, giving legitimacy to U.S. government. Trump and Clinton each received about 25.2% of the eligible vote.

The Constitution always bent the choice of president to be based on the most broad suffrage allowed in each state, that of the lower house of each state legislature at a time when free blacks and women voted for that in New Jersey, and all religious faiths voted in Virginia for all offices. But a “nationwide” popular vote is a fiction of the Europhiles who also trumpet an imaginary “mandate of the people” in the United States to override the laws of Congress as a national legislature, as in the history of dictatorship in Napoleonic France. Drop the word “nationwide”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the editors calling for removal of "nationwide" and limiting the 1824 election to a footnote. Both would clarify the wording and put the 1824 in a proper context. SMP0328. (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Choropleth map

This would be a worthy addition to the article.

The eight states where the electors' names are printed on the presidential ballots.

kencf0618 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems trivial. SMP0328. (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is more than just trivia, but it would definitely help if there were a RS discussing the issue. I suspect that the number of states printing electors' names on the ballot has decreased, perhaps significantly, over the past few decades, and it causes me to wonder, Why? It would be very interesting to find a WP:RS that discusses this issue and puts it into context. Perhaps it is just trivial, but I rather suspect not. YBG (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point. I don't recall any television coverage of electoral college meetings, ever, but we've gone from that to the intense lobbying of this election cycle (there have also been death threats and general doxxing). Who the electors for each party are is a matter of public record, but that only eight states now print them on the ballots is, I think, a salient curiosity. Were there more before? We await the citation-generating research! kencf0618 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
My own state formerly printed the EC nominees names, but no longer does. Incidentally, there was intense lobbying of electors in the 1960 election. YBG (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Once upon a time, electors were chosen by candidates to establish their trustworthiness in local communities across every state. In Virginia, the remnants of the District Plan requires one elector chosen from each Congressional District and two at large. Virginia too printed elector’s names on presidential ballots. Electors were men and women of established reputation meant to reflect well on the merits of the national candidate.
But now with the partisan winner-take-all method, the selection has degenerated twice. First the choices became honorifics for state party loyalists of long standing. Now the selection is further reduced by selection by party hacks who would promote eighteen year olds with no experience or substance, their only merit being expression of identity politics or merely as promising sycophants of the future.
I too would like to see a reliable source discuss the decline of American politics as it is associated with narrow partisan interests of the moment on all sides overcoming the long term general welfare expressed in communities of compact contiguous districts. Virginia's first method by the Revolutionary generation was single member districts for presidential electors, two more than the number for Congressional Districts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Litigation & Background for the 2016 Election Cycle

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electors-colorado-court-appeals-232777

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/11/18283/

kencf0618 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Party's Candidate

"pledged to vote for a party's candidate."

One of the documents cited by this sentence specifically mentions that the founding fathers did not have partisan politics in mind. I think the word "party's" should be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Engel (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Founding Fathers had in mind, political parties exist and each Elector has pledged to vote for his party's Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Do candidate Electors pledge to vote for a candidate, or for a party? What is actually on the ballot papers? If it is the party name only, then definitely they pledge to vote for the party's candidate. If it is the candidate name only, then the phrase should be more like "pledged to vote for a particular candidate." - especially in the section "evolution to the general ticket" which seems to pre-date (or at least be independent of) organised nation-wide parties. Do the general voters have any idea of the identity of the Electors they are selecting? If the ballot paper has elector name (with or without party or candidate pledge), it should say which. The article should describe both the theoretical and legal interpretation and the practical outcomes as party politics has transformed it. The general readership of Wikipedia is not necessarily steeped in US tradition and experience, so it needs to be explained clearly to a global audience. --Scott Davis Talk 03:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2016

Hello,

can one of the wiki admins update the exceptions to which a president was elected also won the popular vote to include the 2016 election

So "Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most popular votes nationwide, except in four elections, 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000."

would change to

"Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most popular votes nationwide, except in five elections, 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016." GKarastergios (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

When the article is unlocked on January 6 (the date when the Congress counts the electoral votes), 2016 will be added. I still think 1824 should be removed as many States did not have the electors popularly elected, instead their legislatures selected them. Therefore, there was no nationwide popular vote that year and so that election was not one in which the nationwide popular vote winner lost in the Electoral College. SMP0328. (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Also in the national elections held every two years, constitutionally there is NEVER a nationwide vote. Votes are conducted by state for President and one-thrd the U.S. Senate, and by single member Congressional Districts for the House of Representatives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Error in text below the first Electoral College map

The text below the image of the map currently reads:

"306 Trump electors from 30 states + ¼ ME (2nd CD) In blue: 232 Clinton electors from 19 states + ¾ ME and D.C."

This adds up to 538, which is incorrect. This implies that there were no faithless electors. The final Electoral College vote was 304 Trump, 227 Clinton, 3 Powell, 1 Paul, 1 Sanders, 1 Spotted Eagle, 1 Kasich. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: Cartogram update

Actual Electoral College vote - cartogram

In lede, please change:

(From old) [[File:Cartogram—2016 Electoral Vote.svg|thumb|350px|[[Cartogram]] showing [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016]] Electoral College projections. {{nowrap|Each square represents one elector.}}]]

(To new) [[File:2016 Electoral Vote-Cartogram.png|thumb|350px|[[Cartogram]] showing [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016]] Electoral College vote. {{nowrap|Each square represents one elector.}}]]

Rationale: Old was merely a projection. New has actual vote as happened yesterday.--Chris from Houston (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. These maps are brilliant -- and they graphically show the Electoral College as weighted to equal populations overall, despite the three-elector outliers -- Wyoming is not 3.6 times larger than California in the Electoral College as a talking head misspoke on national TV this morning. Wyoming's ratio is 3:538, 0.56% versus California's 55:538, 10.2%. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't get carried away, now. 100 votes are not "weighted" on population at all, and the rest are imperfectly so. (As for the maps, I would prefer we take them out altogether, until certification in January). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2016 - popular vote didn't win 2016

Toward the beginning of the article it says that the electoral college has picked the candidate who won the popular vote except in 4 elections. This needs to be updated to 5 elections, with a link to the 2016 election. Scapegoat130 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And of course the sentence should be copy edited to "aggregated popular vote from the states", since the national election for president is constitutionally by the people in the states and the District of Columbia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
How about "aggregated popular vote"? Less wordy and DC is not a State. Four should not be changed, because while 2016 should be added 1824 should be removed. In 1824, many States picked their Electors via their legislatures, rather than by popular vote. SMP0328. (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

First presidential election

On the Talk page for the Presidential Election of 1788-1789 is posted a list of the electors from the first electoral college, presumably the one which operated closest to the way it was envisioned by the framers and gives some insight into this process.

There are relationships between electors of the first EC: several who were at the constitutional convention, several who signed the declaration of independence. The individuals selected for the first EC are possibly a model which is worth adding, at least to that page, but perhaps onto this one as well?

Not a wikipedia expert, looking for some help in adding that information to other page. I suspect it has a place I just don't know how yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.133.171 (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Such a list might be appropriate for the other article, that should be discussed at that article's talk page, but I think would add only unnecessary detail to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2016

Add "2016" to list of election years where the electoral college has not elected the candidate with the majority of the popular vote. Javathunderman (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean, "majority of the aggregated popular votes in the states". Because of early balloting variations, they vote on different days. And Constitutionally there is NEVER a nationwide vote. Votes in national elections are conducted by state for President and one-thrd the U.S. Senate, and by single member Congressional Districts for the House of Representatives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: No much comment from other editors and I can't tell if thevirginiahistorian is supporting or not — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Is elector self-certification notable for the article?

The Certificates of Vote needs to be signed *only* by the electors, which is to say that the body of electors of the state self-certifies the outcome of their own proceedings.

Looking at the 2012 Certificates of Vote states go back and forth on whether the Certificates are certified by only the electors or by the electors and the Secretary of State.

But it is not insignificant that the electors can self-certify their own proceedings. By the constitution/federal statute they do not need anyone's authorization to finish. 72.23.133.171 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The certification serves to show who were the Electors for a particular State or DC. The secretary of state of each State and DC certifies the proceedings beyond what the Electors did. SMP0328. (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Certificate of Ascertainment is what the SOS issues to show who the electors are. That is stamped by the SOS.

The Certificate of Vote is made by the electors themselves to show the result of their proceedings. It does not need to anything other than their signatures because they have the authority to self-certify.

Once they begin their proceedings, they can independently finish them. 70.60.167.75 (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition and change to #Meetings sub-section

I propose two changes to the #Meetings sub-section.

First, I propose inserting the following text after the first paragraph of the sub-section:


Under the authority of Congress's constitutional power to determine "the Day on which [the electors] shall give their Vote,"[1] federal law provides that:

The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.[2]

Each state, in turn, is left to specify the procedures of the meeting and balloting, and the states have created a variety of statutory frameworks.[3]

State laws on the meeting of electors differ in their exact statements of electors' responsibilities, location of meetings, and times.[3] For example, Texas law provides that: "The electors shall convene at the State Capitol at 2 p.m. on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following their election and shall perform their duties as prescribed by federal law";[4] Rhode Island law states that: "Presidential electors elected pursuant to this chapter shall meet in the state house in the city of Providence on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after their election, at the hour of 12 o'clock noon of that day, ... and when the electors appear, or the vacancy is filled as provided in this section, they shall proceed to perform the duties required of electors by the Constitution and laws of the United States."[5]


Second, I propose a change to the next paragraph, from:


Although procedures in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow.

to:

The electors generally follow a similar series of steps, in accordance with the procedures directed by the 12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [6]

The Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the procedures the states follow.

Infoman99 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Article 2". Constitution of the United States. June 21, 1788. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  2. ^ 3 U.S.C. § 7
  3. ^ a b Milhofer, John (November 18, 2016). "Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Electors". National Association of Secretaries of State. Archived from the original on December 19, 2016. Retrieved December 19, 2016. The United States Constitution and federal statutes provide the basic requirements for voting by the presidential electors.... State laws reflect these requirements and generally vary with regard to whether/how additional procedures are covered.
  4. ^ Texas Election Code, section 192.006(a) [1]
  5. ^ Rhode Island General Laws, title 17, section 17-4-11[2]
  6. ^ United States Constitution, 12th Amendment [3]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Martin - I'm unclear on this. The fully-protected article edit request tag says it's to be used for "edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." I'd respectfully maintain that the edits I suggested are uncontroversial. 1) They pertain to the boring matter of logistics. 2) The content is largely citations to federal and state law. 3) Every line I added or changed is sourced. 4) Nobody else has felt energized by them enough to even comment. Infoman99 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarify

In the lead, currently we write: "There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. Each state chooses electors amounting to the combined total of its Senators and Representatives.[7] The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector.

I propose rearrangement, etc. to: "Each state chooses electors, amounting in number to the combined total of its senators and representatives. There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 representatives, the 100 senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment.[7] The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector.

By doing this we make it clearer that senators and representatives are NOT electors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How about: "Each state chooses electors, amounting in number to that state's combined total of senators and representatives. There are a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors the District of Columbia is provided by the Twenty-third Amendment.[7] The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector."
This clarifies that the first sentence is referring to each individual state's representation in the Electoral College, while the second sentence refers to the Electoral College as a whole. Also, wording is change to clarify that the Twenty-third Amendment deals only with the District of Columbia's representation in the Electoral College. Finally, the word "currently" is removed as superfluous; everything being said in this material is "currently" the case. SMP0328. (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Per above consensus 3rd para in lead slight reorg to:

"Each state chooses electors, amounting in number to that state's combined total of senators and representatives. There are a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors the District of Columbia is provided by the Twenty-third Amendment.[7] The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector."

Done hope I've got that right — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

State variations on handling faithless electors

There is a mention of Michigan prohibiting someone from voting faithlessly by law. Other states also prohibit. I suggest either not pointing out Michigan, or including additional states that prohibit faithless electors. I know of at least two other states (Minnesota, Colorado) that have such laws due to this recent election cycle. The article only references Michigan's law. It's not enough evidence that more than just Michigan has such laws. Below are additional references for the article to support the notion that some states bar an elector from casting a vote faithlessly:

Minnesota: http://www.startribune.com/mn-electors-meet-award-clinton-votes-amid-protests-against-trump/407477396/#1

Colorado: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/19/colorado-electors-new-motion-federal-appeal-denied/

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 December 2016

I'd like to add, at the end of the third paragraph, that the 2016 election (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016) was the fifth election in which the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the electoral college vote. Sajarvis (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Fourth. The 1824 election had many States choose their Electors via their State legislatures, so that year's popular vote was only of some of the State and thus was not reflective of the whole country. SMP0328. (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
See #Needs correction below for a related discussion. YBG (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

California factor

Not quite sure how to write it in. California is the only state on its own in the 2016 election, to change who leads the national popular vote. Remove California & Trump leads by about 1.5 million. Of the 5 US presidential elections that have the popular vote loser winning the presidency, 2016 is the only election in which just 'one' state made the difference. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there any WP:RS that discuss this issue? That would help establish the significance of the fact, and reading those reports might help figure out how to word it. YBG (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't connect to external sources, as I don't want any viruses or outsiders messing with my computer. Anyways, scopes & world tribune are some of the places to find this story. Not sure, but it's possible that the 1888 US prez election may also have the same 'one' state phenomena concerning Texas. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 December 2016

Propose improvement of reference for Bugh 2010, changing to cite book template, changing to newer edition, and adding chapterurl, etc.

Current: Bugh, Gary E. 2010. "Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System". In Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities, Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishers, pp. 5–18.

Proposed: {{cite book |last1=Bugh |first1=Gary E. |year=2016 |chapter=Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System |chapterurl={{Google books|eJ4WDAAAQBAJ|page=5|plainurl=yes}} |editor1-first=Gary |editor1-last=Bugh |title=Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities |publisher=Routledge |pages=5–18 |isbn=978-1-317-14527-1 }}
Bugh, Gary E. (2016). "Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System". In Bugh, Gary (ed.). Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge. pp. 5–18. ISBN 978-1-317-14527-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for doing the grunt work. Infoman99 (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
A non-controversial formatting change and I can see no reason why an admin should not implement this ASAP. YBG (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Done Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Electoral_College/Archive_9&oldid=1154791450"