Frequently Asked Questions about the Electoral College

Click here if you have a question that we don't answer on this page.

Instead, Gore and Bush focused almost exclusively on "toss-up" states, regardless of their size. This is a by-product of the Electoral College's winner-take-all system (which is actually a matter of state laws). There is no reason for a candidate to focus on a state where one candidate already has a significant lead. Even if states like Texas (which was obviously "safe" for Bush) or Massachusetts (clearly "safe" for Gore) have millions of undecided voters, it is inefficient for candidates to spend time or money in these states because Gore will not win a plurality in Texas, and Bush will not win a plurality in Massachusetts.

The result is that between 10 and 15 "swing" states received 95 percent of the attention -- including TV and radio ads, candidate visits, and well-organized local campaigns -- in the last two months of the campaign. This is grossly unfair to the vast majority of people that live in big and small states alike.

A system of direct presidential elections, as advocated by Citizens for True Democracy, would solve this problem. Especially in relatively close elections, no candidate or party would ignore any region, not even sparsely populated ones. Direct presidential elections would render current campaigns obsolete. Instead of launching national media campaigns every four years, parties would have an overwhelming incentive to develop PERMANENT local campaign infrastructures, and to play integral roles in local and state politics. Such a revitalized system would reinforce the important connection between national politics and people's everyday lives.

TOP OF PAGE

Citizens for True Democracy supports a constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College with direct presidential elections. We also support federal legislation (not a constitutional amendment) to implement instant-runoff voting (IRV).

Under this system, instead of voting for a single candidate, voters can rank-order candidates in order of preference (i.e. #1. Buchanan, #2. Bush, #3. Nader, #4. Gore). If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of all #1 votes, then the election goes to an "instant runoff." The candidate with the least number of #1 votes is eliminated. The votes of everyone who voted for the now-eliminated candidate as their top choice are transferred to their second choice candidate (i.e., from the example above, Buchanan is eliminated, and that person's #2 vote, Bush, becomes their top choice). We repeat this process until one candidate receives a majority (50 percent + 1) of the #1 votes.

This system guarantees that, unlike the current system, a majority of voters must support a candidate in order for that candidate to win the election. (In 1992 and 1996, Clinton received a plurality, but not a majority of votes; neither Bush nor Gore broke the 50 percent barrier in the 2000 election.) IRV also eliminates the so-called "spoiler effect" from presidential elections. Major-party candidates like Gore would no longer be able to dismiss candidates like Nader by saying that he will "spoil" the election. Instead, instant-runoff voting ensures a more substantive and diverse political debate by giving all candidats at least a limited voice in elections. For more information on IRV, visit the Center for Voting and Democracy's web site.

TOP OF PAGE

Citizens for True Democracy understands that the US is a republic, not a democracy. In fact, that is exactly our point -- we think that America should become a democracy. This would require a constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College with national direct presidential elections.

Part of the Framers' brilliance was their foresight. They realized that times would change. Thus, they created a mechanism through which the US Constitution could be amended. The process is complex, time-consuming, and requires a large majority of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures.

Despite these considerable obstacles, the Constitution has been amended in the past to make the government more democratic. For instance, in 1913, the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators. Prior to the 17th Amendment's ratification, state legislatures had chosen US Senators, as per the original US Constitution. In the early twentieth century, however, Americans decided that they were ready to elect their own Senators. Therefore, we passed a constitutional amendment. Many of the arguments currently being made in favor of retaining the Electoral College are similar to arguments that were being made in support of indirect (i.e. state legislature) election of Senators 90 years ago.

One common misconception about the Electoral College is that it was a clever scheme that the Framers' considered at length and that they unanimously agreed upon. In fact, the Electoral College was part of a last-minute compromise (the Connecticut Compromise) that many Framers opposed. The system has worked relatively well since its inception. However, that does not mean that it is not time for a change. We think that America is ready to finally become a true democracy.

TOP OF PAGE

Some people fear that making America a true democracy by establishing direct presidential elections would lead to "mob rule." Some of the Framers shared this concern when they were designing the US government. This was one of the two main reasons for establishing the Electoral College: the Framers simply did not trust average people to pick their own leaders (the Electoral College's other original purpose was to give smaller states more power). For the same reason, the Constitution said that US Senators would be selected by state legislatures, not by direct election (the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, changed this).

Today, there is little evidence (or logic) to substantiate these fears of democracy. The Framers lived in a world in which no-one had ever witnessed a successful democracy. Now, most modern capitalist countries -- particularly those in western Europe -- are democracies, and rely on direct elections. Few of these countries have dissolved into "mob rule;" those that have did so for reasons beyond direct elections.

Electoral College defenders are quick to point out that the 2000 election marks only the fourth time in US history that the popular vote and the Electoral College vote have split. (Click here for a detailed accounting of past Electoral College crises.) This suggests that direct elections would have elected different presidents in only three instances (not including the 2000 election). Additionally, in all three previous cases where the candidate that won the popular vote lost the electoral vote, the losing candidate won the presidency in the next election by a relatively wide margin. The Electoral College only delayed the inevitable. The Electoral College has not, does not, and will not protect against "mob rule."

Strictly speaking, it is correct that "mob rule" -- whatever that is -- technically constitutes a democracy, because it is the rule of the majority. That does not mean, however, that democracy necessarily constitutes "mob rule." In fact, there is no logical or empirical basis whatsoever for the argument that direct elections will lead to "mob rule."

TOP OF PAGE

As the current controversy in Florida is demonstrating, voter fraud is a serious problem. While Citizens for True Democracy does not advocate specific anti-fraud reforms, we think it is important to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of adopting uniform national ballot standards and regulations. Clearly, voter fraud must be addressed.

Without individual state elections, some Electoral College defenders argue, ballot fraud in one state or municipality becomes a national issue. The assumption behind this argument, however, is that fraud is acceptable as long as it does not blatantly disrupt an election's final results. We disagree. Fraud is a serious problem, and it should be considered as wholly distinct from the separate issue of the Electoral College. The existence of disparate rules, regulations, and ballots in various states is not a strong argument in the Electoral College's defense.

In addition, replacing the Electoral College with direct elections does not necessarily preclude individual state elections. Instead, states could hold their own elections, and the results could be tabulated nationally, in a fashion similar to the current system. (Despite its current irrelevance, the national popular vote total still is tabulated by the Census Bureau, the Federal Election Commission, and media.) This would prevent fraud from becoming a national crisis.

The Electoral College is exacerbating Florida's tabulation problems and the correspondent legal wrangling. If the US had direct presidential elections, a difference of a few hundred -- or even thousand -- votes would be irrelevant, because the margin in the national popular vote is more than 300,000. Another electoral reform that would resolve the Florida controversy is awarding states' electoral votes on a proportional basis. The question in Florida, which has 25 electoral votes, then would revolve around which candidate should receive 13 electoral votes and which should receive 12 -- instead of which candidate should receive 25 and which should receive 0. The question would become moot because Gore would have a national total of at least 279 electoral votes (9 more than necessary to win an electoral majority).

TOP OF PAGE