The Electoral College is created by Article II of our Constitution, and serves as a buffer or filter against direct popular election. This is in keeping with the philosophy of our nation. We are a republic (representational democracy) not a pure democracy. We elect representatives, who, in turn, conduct our government's business for us. Remember, originally we did not directly elect our US Senators; they were appointed by each state's legislature.

The Electoral College also serves as a check on large states dominating national elections, as well as preventing sectionalism. While the argument of winning the popular election is valid, equally valid is the argument of winning the most state elections. Remember, the federal government was supposed to be closely tied to the state governments. The strengthening of state governments by direct involvement in the federal government is accomplished by the Electoral College (and the US Senate appointments dealt with above). Only three times has our popular election returned a different result than our Electoral College: 1824, 1876, and 1888. Each time the President-elect lost the popular vote by slim margins, but they won a majority of states. This is the case in our present election. George W Bush has won roughly 30 of the 50 states (60%) to Al Gore's 20 (40%).

The Electoral College is made up of 538 voters which equals the number of Congressmen. Every state has a minimum of three (two senators, one representative) electors. Generally, the candidate who wins the state-wide election gets all of that state's votes. There are two exceptions which I'll touch on later. The individual who receives 270 electoral votes wins the Presidency. Each elector gets two votes: one for President, one for Vice President. One of those votes must be for a candidate not from their state (this explains why you never see running mates from the same state), again, to prevent sectionalism. Once the electors meet in December, they cast their votes and send them to Congress. The House counts the Presidential votes, and the Senate handles the Vice Presidential votes.

In the event that there is no candidate with a majority in the Electoral College, the decision falls to the House. Each state receives one vote, and the top three candidates are eligible for the voting. The candidate with a majority wins. If a President cannot be selected but a Vice President is selected (this was more plausible when tickets weren't prevalent), the Vice President becomes acting President until a President is elected. In the event neither can be decided upon, the Speaker of the House can become acting President, but he must resign his seat in Congress to do so. If he refuses, it falls to the President pro tempore of the Senate. He would accept under the same terms as the Speaker (see US Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 19, subsection d.1). Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the order of succession after the President pro tempore of the Senate is the Cabinet Officers in the order of the establishment of their offices (Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General, etc.). Normal Presidential eligibility requirements would apply. This act, however, was by and large set up for the eventuality of a President prematurely leaving office (interestingly enough, it was not until 1967's passage of the 25th amendment that Vice-Presidential vacancies were filled mid-term). What's unclear is how the Secretaries would be determined unless they were from the prior administration. That's the answer I'm waiting on from all of those government officials. As far as time for this process is concerned, the new Congress is seated Jan 3, and the new President inaugurated Jan 20 (20th Amendment ratified in 1933). This is the deadline for determining the next President, Speaker of the House, and President pro tempore of the Senate.

Historically, the Electoral College has not played a prominent role in elections (although it has played an important role in determining how candidates campaign). Only three times in history has the Electoral College produced a winner different than popular election, and all three times that candidate won more states than the winner of the popular election. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became the last minority President in American history to date by upsetting incumbent Grover Cleveland (Cleveland would come back to win the next election). I want to focus on the two prior instances which were more noteworthy. I also want to look at how a past election changed the way the Electoral College works.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (of who shot Alexander Hamilton? fame) received the same number of electoral votes (73) because their party was determined to win both the Presidency and Vice Presidency. This election brought to the fore a flaw in the Electoral College: there was no differentiation between a vote for President and Vice President. Subsequently, the election devolved to the House of Representatives where Jefferson received ten votes to Burr's four (two votes were blank). This was remedied by the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, in time to prevent this from happening again. The 12th Amendment stipulates differentiation of votes being cast for the President and Vice Pres.

One of the most confusing, controversial elections (and most entertaining) took place in 1824. Only one party fielded candidates, but four solid candidates emerged, each representing a particular region of the US. This is the textbook case for how the Electoral College prevents sectionalism (candidates only concerned with one region at the expense of the nation's interests). President Monroe was ending his second term and retiring. Out of his administration, five ambitious men stood ready to make a run at the Presidency: Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, General Andrew Jackson, Secretary of War John Calhoun, and Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford. Calhoun decided to run for the Vice Presidency (which he won on the first ballot overwhelmingly with 182 electoral votes). The remaining four candidates split the country geographically. Jackson won 151,000 popular votes (99 electoral), Adams won 113,000 (84), Clay finished with 47,000 (37), and Crawford had 40,000 (41). Jackson argued erroneously that since he had a plurality (but not a majority) of both the popular vote and the Electoral College count that he should be President. The decision devolved to the House where the top three electoral vote receivers (Adams, Jackson, and Crawford) became the final candidates in accordance with the Constitution. Clay decided to throw his support behind Adams, and Adams did indeed win the House vote with thirteen votes (Jackson received seven; Crawford received four). Jackson screamed fraud and spent the next four years sulking until he was elected in 1828. Sound like a recent election? Thankfully, this election followed the law to the letter and didn't result in media-incited riots or bedlam.

The last openly disputed election was in 1876. Samuel J Tilden won the popular vote by roughly 250,000 votes, but disputed returns in Louisiana, South Carolina, and yes, Florida threw the election into chaos. Who says history doesn't repeat itself? Tilden's supporters got a Hayes elector to switch his vote in Oregon to Tilden which threw all three of Oregon's electoral votes into question. The confirmed total then stood at Tilden 184, Hayes 163. Oregon (3), Florida (4), South Carolina (7), or Louisiana (8) could give the election to Tilden. With the three disputed states' electoral votes, Tilden would win the Electoral College 203 to 166. However, a second set of returns came in from those three states giving Rutherford B Hayes the Electoral College 185 to 184.

With the Republicans dominating the Senate, and the Democrats controling the House, Congress was at an impasse. Emerging from the Civil War, the country was on the verge of being torn apart. Both sides claimed victory, so an Electoral Commission was established. On January 29, 1877, Congress created a 15-member bipartisan commission to resolve the dispute. It consisted of five Democrats, five Republicans, and five Supreme Court justices (two Republicans and two Democrats, who chose a fifth justice, intended to be nonpartisan, but who was, in actuality, a Republican acceptable to Democrats). The Commission voted unanimously to give Hayes Oregon and South Carolina and voted 8-7 to give him Louisiana (three states he probably won outright had there been no manipulation of the vote counts). It also voted 8-7 to give him Florida which was probably won by Tilden. The 8-7 votes went strictly down party lines for the Republicans. To appease the Democrats, Hayes agreed to pull Union troops out of the South. Subsequently, Congress agreed that the Electoral Commission infringed upon the states' sovreignty, and they codified it in 1877 giving the individual states exclusive power (subject to restrictions) to resolve disputes over the votes of their Presidential electors.

Where does that leave us today? Is the Electoral College antiquated and unnecessary? I don't see where the relevancy of preventing sectionalism and promoting a national agenda over a regional agenda has changed. States like New Mexico take prominence because every state counts. Were it just a popular vote, Gore and Bush would have campaigned in the largest states running on special interests designed to pander to specific needs in those states. That's why state governments exist: to take care of their specific needs. The President is supposed to take care of national interests.

You hear the argument put forth that a straight popular vote makes your vote worth more. One vote can decide an election. This isn't the case. If you count your vote in the popular election, you are one in 50 million. You represent 0.000002% of the vote. Take this down to a state level. For example, in Virginia, you would be one of three million or .00003%. At a county level? 1 in 20,000 or .005%. Finally, at a precinct level it becomes 1 in 1000 or .1%. As you can see, you have much more impact at a local level than a national level. Therefore, your vote means more at a state level (which the Electoral College employs) than at a national level which holds with the Founding Fathers' philosophy of strong state involvement in the federal government.

An interesting analogy was presented by Alan Natapoff, a physicist at MIT. He compared it to the World Series. The World Series is not decided by who scores the most cumulative runs over the whole World Series; it's decided by who wins the best of seven (if necessary) individual games. Clearly the popular vote and electoral vote break down the same way. Said Natapoff, "If a candidate wins just by winning more votes, we haven't forced him to do much. In the electoral system, they have to represent the country and the issues in every state." I concur with this opinion: it should take a little something more to become President. The Electoral College thus becomes a microcosm of how our government works.

Going forward can we make the Electoral College better? Yes, I think we can, and this is where I like what Nebraska and Maine have done. These are the exceptions I mentioned way back at the beginning of this article (were you paying attention?). These states do not give all of their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the state popular election. The winner of the state popular election receives the two electors representing the state's US Senators. The remaining electoral votes are determined by the winner of each Congressional District's popular vote. In Maine, therefore, Gore won two votes for winning the state-wide popular election, one for winning the state's 1st Congressional District, and one for winning the state's 2nd Congressional District. This scenario would make the Electoral College more closely reflect the popular vote. In this scenario Bush would have won the state and most of the electoral votes in Florida, but Gore would have won a few from Florida from the heavy Democratic coastal regions. Unfortunately, this decision must be made at a state level and cannot be mandated by the federal government. So it's up to us to begin a grass-roots movement to reform the Electoral College.

Has the Electoral College outlasted its usefulness? Clearly, the answer is no. It continues to serve the purpose it was intended for, and it remains a strong reminder of the wisdom and prudence that the Founding Fathers incorporated into their vision of a more perfect union.