Recommended Reading
Bolinger, Benjamin. "Point: Abolishing the Electoral College." International Social Science Review, 82: 3-4 (June 2007): 179-182.
A companion piece to the McCollester article, described below, “Point” brings up why the Electoral College is not fair to American citizens, as it does not truly uphold the ideal of “majority rule.” The author’s first argument against the Electoral College is that some states are highly overrepresented because of it. Some citizens’ votes are worth more than others because of how many electoral votes their state has. Bolinger gives the example of California and Wyoming, with 55 and 3 electoral votes respectively. An electoral vote in California represents almost 500,000 more people than an electoral vote in Wyoming does, giving the Wyoming vote more weight. The author claims this is unfair because it means that America does not truly have “equal representation.” He also mentions that U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are completely excluded from this system because they don’t have any electoral votes (180). It is suggested that the U.S, adopt a runoff election system so that whomever is elected is done so by a true majority of the people. Reading this piece and the McCollester piece together provides an example of how much the Electoral College is debated in both academic and more informal cases.
Goux, Darshan J. and David A. Hopkins. "The Empirical Implications of Electoral College Reform." American Politics Research, 36: 6 (Nov. 2008): 857-879.
This paper discusses the implications of reforming the Electoral College and how it would impact candidate behavior as well as overall results of the Election. The existence of the Electoral College created “battleground states,” in which candidates will focus much of their time on. This is because these states don’t vote for the same political party from election to election, so the candidates will do everything they can to get the citizens of these states to vote for them. The authors argue in this paper that without the Electoral College, if we instead used a direct popular vote, state boundaries would effectively evaporate, as each vote in the country would be of equal weight. The candidates would have to find some other way to calculate campaign strategies. Overall, the authors conclude that while some reasons for abolishing the Electoral College have merit, there are still reasons why it should not abolished, and that further research needs to be done to come to a more concrete conclusion. Reading this paper will give you a better understanding of how reform options can be examined scientifically and in more detail than any journalist can do.
McCollester, Maria. "Counterpoint: Preserving the Electoral College." International Social Science Review, 82: 3-4 (June 2007): 182-186.
A companion piece to the Bolinger article, described above, “Counterpoint” discusses the beginnings of the Electoral College and goes through three main reasons as to why it should be preserved. McCollester first goes through the creation of the Electoral College and why the Founding Fathers believed it was the best way to elect the president. The Founders believed that the president couldn’t just be elected by anybody, as an average uninformed citizen could potentially elect someone unfit for the highest office in the land. The Electoral College was the closest thing they could think of that still gave power to the people without a complete direct election. The author believes that we should keep the Electoral College because it “balances federalism,” allowing us to utilize the checks and balances that are the foundation of this country. She also claims that abolishing the Electoral College would destroy the two-party system, which is essentially the only thing our country has ever known. Finally, the author believes that because the Electoral College has always been there and has adapted to many political changes in the U.S. over the years, we should keep it in place. Reading this piece and the Bolinger piece together provides an example of how much the Electoral College is debated in both academic and more informal cases.
Ross, Robert E. "Federalism and the Electoral College: The Development of the General Ticket Method for Selecting Presidential Electors." Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46: 2 (Spring 2016): 147-169. doi:10.1093/publius/pjv043.
This paper explores more in depth the way states choose how to allocate their electors and what, historically, led them to choose which way of doing it. Initially, most states felt that using the winner-takes-all system gave the states the most power, and that it was more in tune with Federalist ideals. This was instead of the district method (currently used by Maine and Nebraska) that more accurately reflected majority rule. However, until the election of 1824, states experimented with how to allocate electoral votes. There were debates in Congress in the early 1800’s to determine whether or not a uniform option should be required by law, but this idea was ultimately thrown out. But it was again brought up after the contested election of 1824. After this election, there was a constitutional amendment proposed that would require states to use the district method. This amendment failed to be ratified, and today most states still use the winner-takes-all method. Reading this paper will allow you to understand why most states are still using the same old method why it’s difficult to change that by law.
Wagner, David S. "The Forgotten Avenue of Reform: The Role of States in Electoral College Reform and the Use of Ballot Initiatives to Effect That Change." Review of Litigation, 25: 3 (Summer 2006): 575-602.
This paper discusses the popular alternatives to the current winner-takes-all system of the Electoral College, including the district method and the proportional method. The district method is one that’s already been talked about throughout this website, but the proportional method is a new concept. This method, most recently proposed by Colorado Amendment 36 in 2004, says that electoral votes should be awarded based on the proportion of the popular vote a candidate wins. For example, if a candidate wins 60% of the popular vote in a state, they should get 60% of the electoral votes as well. Colorado’s Amendment 36 proposed this legislation and it was popular with the citizens of Colorado, but it ultimately failed and the issue has not been brought up since. However, because of polling and ballot initiatives, there is a possibility that states could one day convert to this system and others, effectively changing the Electoral College as we know it. This paper will give you a greater understanding of how alternative methods to winner-takes-all can be implemented and what it takes to do so.
Wegman, Jesse. Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2020. Print.
Published at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and only 8 months before the 2020 election, Let the People Pick the President makes the case for abolishing the Electoral College by delving into his origins and history over the last 200 years, debunking common myths about it, and explaining why a national popular vote, specifically the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), would be the best way to make our country more democratic.
A companion piece to the McCollester article, described below, “Point” brings up why the Electoral College is not fair to American citizens, as it does not truly uphold the ideal of “majority rule.” The author’s first argument against the Electoral College is that some states are highly overrepresented because of it. Some citizens’ votes are worth more than others because of how many electoral votes their state has. Bolinger gives the example of California and Wyoming, with 55 and 3 electoral votes respectively. An electoral vote in California represents almost 500,000 more people than an electoral vote in Wyoming does, giving the Wyoming vote more weight. The author claims this is unfair because it means that America does not truly have “equal representation.” He also mentions that U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are completely excluded from this system because they don’t have any electoral votes (180). It is suggested that the U.S, adopt a runoff election system so that whomever is elected is done so by a true majority of the people. Reading this piece and the McCollester piece together provides an example of how much the Electoral College is debated in both academic and more informal cases.
Goux, Darshan J. and David A. Hopkins. "The Empirical Implications of Electoral College Reform." American Politics Research, 36: 6 (Nov. 2008): 857-879.
This paper discusses the implications of reforming the Electoral College and how it would impact candidate behavior as well as overall results of the Election. The existence of the Electoral College created “battleground states,” in which candidates will focus much of their time on. This is because these states don’t vote for the same political party from election to election, so the candidates will do everything they can to get the citizens of these states to vote for them. The authors argue in this paper that without the Electoral College, if we instead used a direct popular vote, state boundaries would effectively evaporate, as each vote in the country would be of equal weight. The candidates would have to find some other way to calculate campaign strategies. Overall, the authors conclude that while some reasons for abolishing the Electoral College have merit, there are still reasons why it should not abolished, and that further research needs to be done to come to a more concrete conclusion. Reading this paper will give you a better understanding of how reform options can be examined scientifically and in more detail than any journalist can do.
McCollester, Maria. "Counterpoint: Preserving the Electoral College." International Social Science Review, 82: 3-4 (June 2007): 182-186.
A companion piece to the Bolinger article, described above, “Counterpoint” discusses the beginnings of the Electoral College and goes through three main reasons as to why it should be preserved. McCollester first goes through the creation of the Electoral College and why the Founding Fathers believed it was the best way to elect the president. The Founders believed that the president couldn’t just be elected by anybody, as an average uninformed citizen could potentially elect someone unfit for the highest office in the land. The Electoral College was the closest thing they could think of that still gave power to the people without a complete direct election. The author believes that we should keep the Electoral College because it “balances federalism,” allowing us to utilize the checks and balances that are the foundation of this country. She also claims that abolishing the Electoral College would destroy the two-party system, which is essentially the only thing our country has ever known. Finally, the author believes that because the Electoral College has always been there and has adapted to many political changes in the U.S. over the years, we should keep it in place. Reading this piece and the Bolinger piece together provides an example of how much the Electoral College is debated in both academic and more informal cases.
Ross, Robert E. "Federalism and the Electoral College: The Development of the General Ticket Method for Selecting Presidential Electors." Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46: 2 (Spring 2016): 147-169. doi:10.1093/publius/pjv043.
This paper explores more in depth the way states choose how to allocate their electors and what, historically, led them to choose which way of doing it. Initially, most states felt that using the winner-takes-all system gave the states the most power, and that it was more in tune with Federalist ideals. This was instead of the district method (currently used by Maine and Nebraska) that more accurately reflected majority rule. However, until the election of 1824, states experimented with how to allocate electoral votes. There were debates in Congress in the early 1800’s to determine whether or not a uniform option should be required by law, but this idea was ultimately thrown out. But it was again brought up after the contested election of 1824. After this election, there was a constitutional amendment proposed that would require states to use the district method. This amendment failed to be ratified, and today most states still use the winner-takes-all method. Reading this paper will allow you to understand why most states are still using the same old method why it’s difficult to change that by law.
Wagner, David S. "The Forgotten Avenue of Reform: The Role of States in Electoral College Reform and the Use of Ballot Initiatives to Effect That Change." Review of Litigation, 25: 3 (Summer 2006): 575-602.
This paper discusses the popular alternatives to the current winner-takes-all system of the Electoral College, including the district method and the proportional method. The district method is one that’s already been talked about throughout this website, but the proportional method is a new concept. This method, most recently proposed by Colorado Amendment 36 in 2004, says that electoral votes should be awarded based on the proportion of the popular vote a candidate wins. For example, if a candidate wins 60% of the popular vote in a state, they should get 60% of the electoral votes as well. Colorado’s Amendment 36 proposed this legislation and it was popular with the citizens of Colorado, but it ultimately failed and the issue has not been brought up since. However, because of polling and ballot initiatives, there is a possibility that states could one day convert to this system and others, effectively changing the Electoral College as we know it. This paper will give you a greater understanding of how alternative methods to winner-takes-all can be implemented and what it takes to do so.
Wegman, Jesse. Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2020. Print.
Published at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and only 8 months before the 2020 election, Let the People Pick the President makes the case for abolishing the Electoral College by delving into his origins and history over the last 200 years, debunking common myths about it, and explaining why a national popular vote, specifically the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), would be the best way to make our country more democratic.