A STUDY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT
By
Lou Weibo
A Thesis
Submitted to The Graduate School and The College of English
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Master of Arts
Under the Supervision of Associate Professor Lin Ling
Shanghai International Studies University
December, 2011
Acknowledgement
Upon completion of this thesis, I would like to extend my great gratitude to all who
have helped me with the process of writing.
My deepest appreciation goes to associate Professor Lin Ling, my respected
supervisor, who roused my interest in this field and provided me with suggestions on
structural rearrangement, language proofreading and content cohesion. She is strict and
responsible and guided me through step by step. For any mistakes or deficiencies in this
thesis, the responsibility rests squarely with me.
My great gratitude also goes to the many scholars, home and abroad, who have
written an extensive amount of work on this subject and have enlightened me and helped
me grope for the final completion of this thesis.
Last but not least, I want to extend many special thanks to my family, my friends, my
roommate and my classmates who have supported me unfailingly, either financially or
emotionally. And it might be quite impossible for me to stick to the two and a half year
plan without their unrelenting support and encouragement.
i
Abstract
The Electoral College system of America is a unique presidential election system in
the world. It is also one of the most controversial issues in American politics. At present,
debate over the presidential election system comes from the winner-take-all system
adopted by most states. It focuses on the election of run-up president and the unequal
distribution of state interest. Currently, research conducted by American scholars often
concentrate on the Electoral College system itself. The benefits and drawbacks of the
current system are well analyzed in many books and essays. Meanwhile, scholars and
political scientists also actively explore possible alternatives to the current system,
including popular election plan, district election plan and proportional election plan. They
also predict potential influence of proposed plans on American society. Domestic scholars
mainly explore the function and limitation of the Electoral College system from its origin
and historical development.
This thesis aims to discuss the Electoral College system in American political context.
The Electoral College system does not exist alone. Rather, its origin and development is
closely related to the American political environment. Therefore, in carrying out this issue,
the thesis tries to avoid analyzing mere advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral
College system and its alternatives. The thesis will explore reasons for the long existence
of the Electoral College system from three different perspectives, namely the federal
principle, the two-party system and the racial diversity in American society.
This paper will be divided into three parts. The first chapter will give an overview of
the Electoral College system, including its origin, the Framer‟s vision for the system, and
its historical development. The second chapter will be devoted to elaborate major
controversies over the Electoral College system, including the election of run-up president
and state interest distribution. The third chapter explores the political basis of the Electoral
College system from three different perspectives. First of all, it analyzes the legitimacy of
the current system from the perspective of the federal principle. Second, the thesis analyzes
the rationale of the system on the basis of the two-party system in America. On the one
hand, the two-party system has largely shaped the current Electoral College system. On the
ii
other hand, the Electoral College system has greatly consolidated the two-party system in
return. Third, it explores the rationale of the current system from the perspective of interest
of minority groups. Different ethnic groups coexisted in America. It is of great importance
to make their voice heard. The current system has prevented them from being marginalized.
Based on the analysis from these perspectives, this study reveals the mechanism of the
Electoral College within the American political system.
Key words: Electoral College system, run-up president, state interest, federal principle,
two-party system, racial diversity
iii
摘要
美国总统选举制度——选举人团制，是世界上非常独特的一种选举制度。同时，
它也是美国政治中极富争议的话题。目前针对总统选举制度的争议主要源于在绝大多
数州盛行的“胜者全得”制度。争议的焦点主要在于少数人总统的产生及各州利益分
配之间的矛盾。目前，国外学者对于美国总统选举制度的研究主要围绕选举人团制度
本身展开。大量著作从多角度深入分析选举人团制度的利弊。同时，学者与政治学家
们也积极探讨针对现行总统选举制度的各种改革方式，主要包括普选制、选区制和比
例制，对各种改革方式的可行性及其可能产生的影响进行预测和分析。而国内学者主
要从选举人团制度的起源及其发展历史探索其作用及局限性，预测未来改革趋势。
本文尝试在美国政治语境下探讨美国选举人团制度，从它的历史渊源及发展演变
探讨它的内在本质及其矛盾。总统选举制度不是一个孤立存在的个体，它的产生和发
展与美国的政治环境密切相关。在开展这一课题时，本文力图摆脱对选举人团制度本
身及各种改革方案的利弊分析，尝试从三个不同视角——联邦主义、两党制及美国社
会种族多样性探讨选举人团制度长期存在的原因和必然性。
本文将分为三个部分。第一章将概括介绍现行的总统选举制度，包括选举人团制
度的起源、发展历史及现行的操作办法。第二章将讨论针对选举人图制度的各项争议，
包括少数人总统的产生和各州利益分配问题。本文的第三章重点从三个角度讨论选举
人团制度的所存在的政治基础。首先，本文从联邦主义角度出发分析选举人团制度存
在的合理性。其次，文章从历史发展角度探索两党制对选举人团制度所产生的深远影
响。从某种意义上说，两党制与选举人团制度相互依存，缺一不可。最后，文章从少
数民族利益出发揭示选举人团制度存在的必要性。总而言之，本文力图说明选举人团
制度是美国政治环境下平衡各种政治力量的最佳选择，它的存在意义重大。
关键字：选举人团制、少数人总统、州利益、联邦主义、两党制、民族多样性
iv
Contents
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... ii
摘要 .......................................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1. The Electoral College: Origin and Mechanism ..................................................................................... 6
1.1 The Origin.................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Framer‟s Vision ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 The Electoral College Today ..................................................................................................... 12
Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 18
2. Major Controversies ............................................................................................................................ 19
2.1 The Election of Run-up President.............................................................................................. 19
2.2 Political Equality ....................................................................................................................... 25
2.2.1 Large-state Bias .............................................................................................................. 26
2.2.2 Small-state Bias .............................................................................................................. 27
Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 28
3. Political Mechanism and Social Realities............................................................................................ 30
3.1 Federalism ................................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.1 Federalism as a Political System .................................................................................... 31
3.1.2 Federalism in the Electoral College ................................................................................ 38
3.2 The Two-party System ............................................................................................................... 41
3.2.1 Historical Development: An Overview........................................................................... 41
3.2.2 The Two-party System and the Electoral College........................................................... 43
3.3 Interests of Minority Groups ..................................................................................................... 49
3.3.1 Diversification in the American Society ......................................................................... 49
3.3.2 Majority Rule with the Consent of Minorities ................................................................ 51
Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 56
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 60
v
Introduction
The Electoral College system of America is a unique presidential election system in
the world. It still remains one of major controversial issues in American politics. While
many people applaud for the Founding Father‟s wisdom, others are strongly against the
system. As the intellectual crystallization of founding fathers, the system has been under
question and criticism from its beginning.
Currently, the presidential election is held in 50 states separately. Each state is
allocated with certain number of electoral votes, equal to the state‟s number of
representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The total number of
electoral votes is 538, including three electoral votes from Washington D.C. On the
Election Day, voters will go to polling stations to cast their votes for president. At present,
most states adopt the winner-take-all system, under which the candidate that wins the
plurality of popular vote of a certain state could take all the electoral votes of that state.
Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions to the rule. Nationwide, the candidate that wins the
majority of electoral votes (270 votes) will become the next president of the United States.
The winner-take-all system has greatly changed the way that candidates run for their
presidency. Along with the winner-take-all system, more and more began to doubt its
legitimacy.
The most intense debate about the Electoral College system is the election of the
minority president—the president that has won more electoral votes than his opponent
without winning more popular votes. To some, the election of minority president is
obviously in the violation of democratic principle. The president should represent the
majority of the nation. S/he is not qualified enough to run the nation if s/he is not chosen
by the majority of the people. Other vehement discussion about the system includes the
state interests. According to the constitution, each state, big or small, will be guaranteed at
least three electoral votes. In other words, the individual vote in one state would weigh
more than that in another state, especially those in small states. On the other hand, in terms
of the total number of electoral votes, candidates would like to focus more on big states.
1
Therefore, citizens in big states are often attached more importance by candidates. After all,
whose interest the Electoral College system is trying to protect—small states, big states or
swing states? The fact that the current system can not balance the interest of each state is
another bone of contention.
For centuries, in order to resolve controversies over the Electoral College system,
political scholars and researchers have produced rich works and papers on the Electoral
College system, approaching this issue from various perspectives.
Books contributed to defend the current system include Judith A. Best‟s The Case
against Direct Election of the President, A Defense of the Electoral College (Judith A. Best:
1975), which analyzes the assets of the Electoral College system by comparing it with the
automatic plan, the proportional plan, and the district plan, Voting for President: The
Electoral College and the American Political System (Wallace S. Sayre and Judith H.
Parris: 1970), which reveals possible consequences of proposed changes, including the
contingency procedures, the influence on federalism and two-party system, Enlightened
Democracy: the Case for the Electoral College (Tara Ross: 2005), another vindication of
the Electoral College system, exploring the reasons why those liberals who denounced the
Electoral College as elitist and outdated are wrong, further explaining the thought
processes that went behind this invention of the founding fathers, and coming to
conclusion that the system does not ignore the will of people, but protects the republic and
promote the country‟s liberty. The Importance of the Electoral College (George Grant:
2004) also falls into this category. Grant provides three major lines of reasoning in
supporting the Electoral College. The first line is that the system works in the past two
hundred years. The second line of reasoning is that it represents many minority groups in
the nation. The third line is the stability of the republic based on both the wisdom and the
anti-revolutionary gravitas of the Founding Fathers. The book Securing Democracy: Why
We Have an Electoral College (Edited by Gary L. GreggⅡ: 2001) is another important
achievement, which assembles seven essays by political scholars endorsing support for the
Electoral College. The essays argue that the current structure of the Electoral College
maintains the two-party system, keeps federal and constitutional procedures intact, and has
only failed to produce electoral mandates in four elections since 1804.
There are also analytical works on reforming or abolishing the electoral colleges
2
system. In The People’s President: the Electoral College in American History and the
Direct Vote Alternative (Neal R. Peirce & Lawrence D. Longley: 1987), authors have
traced the long history of Electoral College, as well as those controversial presidential
elections in the history. Meanwhile, this book provides a very detailed and comprehensive
overview of reform efforts for nearly two centuries, especially the very important decade
from 1969-1979 in the history of electoral reform. The Politics of Electoral College
Reform (Lawrence D. Longley & Alan G. Braun 1972) gives an overall view of features of
various reform possibilities, and devotes a separate chapter to argue in detail for direct
national popular voting. The authors argue that nothing less than direct popular voting for
president will satisfy their specified criteria of democracy, legitimacy, and effectiveness of
the winner. This book‟s most original contribution is a detailed narrative and analysis of
the strong, but ultimately unsuccessful, drive for Electoral College reform in the 91st
Congress. In his controversial book Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (George
Edwards III: 2004), George Edwards III has strongly blamed the Electoral College. He
argues that—contrary to what supporters of the Electoral College usually claim—there is
no real justification for a system that might violate majority rule. Drawing on systematic
data, Edwards finds that the Electoral College distorts the presidential campaign so that
candidates ignore most small states and some large ones and pay little attention to
minorities, and it encourages third parties to run presidential campaign and discourages
party competition in many states.
The controversy over the Electoral College System has also attracted scholarly
attention in China. In “Electoral College in US Presidential Election”, Tang Xiao has
reviewed the evolution and development of the Electoral College system from its very
beginning to the modern version. More importantly, he has analyzed the functions and
limits of the current system. Lin Hongyu has also written two papers on the Electoral
College system. In “The Embarrassment of Democracy: Viewing American Election
Politics from the Perspective of Electoral College System” and “On the Reform of the US
Electoral College System”, he has pointed out the limit of the current system: inequality
between electoral votes and popular vote, which may lead to undemocratic result—the
election of minority president.
“An insight into the US Electoral College System” by Lin
Ling has also reviewed the essentials of the system and envisioned the prospect for future
3
reform.
In conclusion, most of authors have clear-cut stand on the issue: either support or
oppose the system. Most of these works focus on the assets and defects of the Electoral
College system. However, relatively few observations in Electoral College system are on
the political basis of the system. This thesis aims to explore the nature of the Electoral
College system in the American political context.
The study is based on both primary and secondary resources. Candidates‟ campaign
policy and speech are important material to discover the influence of the current
presidential election system. Statistics from every general election can also be served as the
primary resource to analyze different results should the Electoral College system be
replaced by other plans. The advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College system,
as well as its developing history, are well analyzed in many books and essays, providing
rich secondary resources to further explore the current system in American political
context.
The first chapter gives an overview of the Electoral College system, including the
origin, the Framer‟s vision for the system, and its historical development, enabling reader
to get a general idea of the system in a short time. The second chapter will be devoted to
elaborate major controversies over the Electoral College system. To better illustrate the
debate over the election of run-up president, four important elections will be analyzed in
the second chapter. Meanwhile, the controversy over state interest will also be discussed.
The third chapter explores the political basis of the Electoral College system from three
different perspectives. First of all, it analyzes the legitimacy of the current system from the
perspective of the federal principle. Federalism forms the basis of the American political
system, which is well embodied in the Electoral College system. Second, the thesis will
analyze the rationale of the system on the basis of the two-party system in America. On the
one hand, the two-party system has largely shaped the current Electoral College system.
The winner-take-all system was adopted by states with the development of national party
system. At the beginning of the 19th century, both the Jeffersonian Republicans and the
Hamiltonian Federalists began to offer presidential candidates to the nation. In order to win
the presidency, both parties can not resist the temptation to press electors to elect
candidates from their own parties. As a result, the prospect envisioned by Framers that
4
electors should use their own wisdom to elect the president was soon dead. On the other
hand, the Electoral College system has consolidated the two-party system in return. In each
state, there are well-organized Democratic Party and Republican Party which could exert
great power on presidential election. Though third party or independent candidates could
win election in some states, the chance for them to win the presidency is very slim. Third,
it will also explore the rationale of the current system from the perspective of interest of
minority groups. Different ethnic groups coexisted in America. It is of great importance to
make their voice heard. The current system has prevented them from being marginalized.
An ethnic group may constitute a small proportion compared to the national population,
however, its population may be large enough in a single state to form a critical mass so that
candidates can not afford to ignore their interest. Based on the analysis from these
perspectives, this study reveals the mechanism of the Electoral College within the
American political system.
Overall, the thesis argues that the Electoral College is grounded in the American
political system. First, the Electoral College is in accordance with the federal principle.
Second, the development of the two-party system has exerted great influence to the
development of Electoral College. Third, the Electoral College System has helped to
secure the interest of minority groups.
It is hoped that this thesis will enrich the existing scholarship by exploring the
political basis of the Electoral College system. As most works on Electoral College system
at home, often approach this issue from the perspective of its controversies, this thesis will
provide a new approach to work on. It also aims to illuminate on the study of the
mechanism of American political system.
5
1. The Electoral College: Origin and Mechanism
1.1 The Origin
After the thirteen colonies won independence from the Great Britain, the Founding
Fathers found that the new nation under the Articles of Confederation was a loose union.
Congress was unable to govern on some crucial issues, including taxation, regulation of
commerce, paper money and so on. It is especially true during the war time. In order to end
the chaos under the Articles, delegates from twelve states (except the Rhode Island) met in
Philadelphia between May 25 and September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention to
revise the Articles of Confederation.
When it came to the presidency, the delegates were perplexed about how to choose
the president. Many plans were proposed on how to elect the president. Yet, the delegates
could not achieve agreement on a single plan for a long time. Three major proposals for
electing the president were debated most contentiously during the convention. They were
election by Congress, direct election by people and election by intermediate electors.
The plan of legislative election was originated from the “Virginia Plan”. At that time,
many states, including the state of Virginia, elected its governor by state legislature. It was
first proposed by Edmund Randolph of Virginia that national executive be elected by the
members of the national legislature. Supporters of this plan advocated for a strong national
legislature and weak executive. Its chief advocate Roger Sherman from Connecticut State
endorsed his support for legislative plan “the person (Executive magistracy) ought to be
appointed by and accountable to the Legislature only, which was the despositary of the
supreme will of the Society.”1 However, this also turned out to be the major concern of its
opponents. To let the Congress elect the president, according to many delegates, would
jeopardize the president‟s autonomy into the hands of the legislature branch. As the nation
has just won independence from the British tyranny, the Founding Fathers refused each and
every possible form of tyranny. The adoption of the legislative election plan would
1
Farrand, Max, (Ed.), Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, New Haven: Yale University Press,
4 vols, 1911, p. 65.
6
possibly hand the executive power and legislative power over to a single branch—the
legislative branch, which is against the basic principle of checks and balances. Therefore,
due to its threat on president‟s independence, the plan was finally defeated, despite the fact
that it was submitted to the convention for final vote several times.
Another plan that has caused heated discussion during the convention is the direct
election by people. Some states like New York and Massachusetts adopted the plan to elect
state governors. Some representatives assumed that, with the experience in these states, the
plan would also be operated well nationwide. Proponents of the plan included James
Wilson, Gouverneur Morris and James Madison. They believed that since the president
serves the whole nation, it should also be elected by the whole nation directly. Meanwhile,
direct vote by people would guarantee the independence of the president, as he only needs
to be responsible for the people, rather than one particular group electing him/her as
president. Once in the position, the president can carry out his work much easier, for he
represents the majority of the nation. However, it could not win support from all the
delegates either. First of all, considering of the poor communication and transportation
condition at the beginning of the nation, it would be very difficult for candidates to carry
out their campaigns. It was also a huge task for the government to supervise the whole
process of campaign and election. Many worried that people, especially those living in
far-away areas would not be well-informed about candidates‟ information from other states.
As a result, they would only choose their own state‟s favorite son. Furthermore, the
Founding Fathers were not very confident about the public‟s ability to choose the right
person neither. As Mason of Virginia remarked, “it would be as unnatural to refer the
choice of a proper magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer a trial of colors to a blind
man. The extent of the country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite
capacity to judge… the candidate.”2 At the same time, the Framers were worried about the
“tyranny of the majority”3. If the direct vote plan was employed, interest of some minority
groups, whose population were not large enough to form a critical mass in national election,
would be probably ignored. Maybe the most dangerous concern about this plan is that the
election would be controlled by some demagogues, inducing some innocent citizens to
2
Farrand, Max, (Ed.), Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, New Haven: Yale University Press,
4 vols, 1937, p. 57.
3
http://www.thegreen papers.com?Hx/Electoral College.html
7
choose certain candidate, which might cause “tumult and disorder”4. Another controversy
about this plan is between northern and southern states. Southern delegates were afraid that
direct vote would weaken their influence in presidential election because at that time a
large proportion of their population was slaves that did not have the right to vote. As a
result, the direct vote plan was also abandoned.
The third plan—the Electoral College plan was proposed as an intermediate plan after
the legislative plan and the direct vote plan were refused. According to this plan, each state
would be allocated a certain number of electors, which equaled to its member in the Senate
and the House of Representative. Each state could adopt its own measure to choose
electors, whether by popular vote, appointment by the governor, or by the election of state
legislature. On the Election Day, electors will meet at their states to cast their votes for
president and vice president. The candidate that wins the majority of electoral vote wins
the presidency, and the runner-up became vice president. If no candidate won the majority,
then the House of Representatives would choose the president from among the top five
candidates by one vote each state. And if there remain two or three candidates with equal
votes after the choice of president, the Senate shall choose from them the vice president.
On September 6, 1787, the Electoral College as an institution was written into the final
draft of the Constitution. On September 6, 1787, it was approved by the Constitutional
Convention. However, the ratification of the system did not go very smoothly. Though
seldom opponents of the new Constitution attacked the Electoral College system, “months
of struggle ensued within the thirteen state legislatures”5. On June 21, 1788, with the
ratification by the state of New Hampshire, the system was finally put into effect with the
ratification by the minimum nine states. However, as a practical matter, “the two large
states—Virginia and New York had o ratify the system for the whole new federal system to
be a viable one.”6 By late July1788, the two states ratified the system. The last state,
Rhode Island, finally ratified in 1790, one year after the first president George Washington
was elected and sworn into the office.
4
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, & John Jay, The Federalist Papers, New York: Bantam Books,
1982, p. 345.
5
Sayre, S. Wallace, & Judith A. Parris, Voting for President: The Electoral College and the American
Political System, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1970, p. 24.
6
http://www.thegreen papers.com?Hx/Electoral College.html
8