{ "id": "RL30804", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL30804", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 346874, "date": "2004-11-05", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:05:04.853680", "title": "The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals", "summary": "American voters elect the President and Vice President of the United States indirectly, through an arrangement known as the electoral college system. The electoral college system comprises a complex mosaic of constitutional provisions, state and federal laws, and political party rules and practices.\nAlthough the electoral college system has delivered uncontested results in 46 out of 50 presidential elections since it assumed its present constitutional form in 1804, it has been the subject of persistent criticism and frequent proposals for reform. Reform advocates cite several problems with the current system, including a close or multi-candidate election can result in no electoral college majority, leading to a contingent election in Congress; the current system can result in the election of a President and Vice President who received a majority of electoral votes, but fewer popular votes, than their opponents; the formula for assignment of electoral votes is claimed to provide an unfair advantage for less populous states and does not account for population changes between censuses; and the winner-take-all system used by most states does not recognize the proportional strength of the losing major party, minor party, and independent candidates. On the other hand, defenders assert that the electoral college system is an integral and vital component of federalism, that it has a 92% record of non-controversial results, and that it promotes an ideologically and geographically broad two-party system. They maintain that repair of the electoral college system, rather than abolition, would eliminate any perceived defects while retaining its overall strengths.\nProponents of presidential election reform generally advocate either completely eliminating the electoral college system, replacing it with direct popular election, or repairing perceived defects in the existing system. The direct election alternative would replace the electoral college with a single, nationwide count of popular votes. That is, the candidates winning a plurality of votes would be elected; most proposals provide for a runoff election if no candidates received a minimum of 40% of the popular vote. Electoral college reform proposals include (1) the district plan, awarding each state\u2019s two at-large electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winners, and one electoral vote to the winning candidates in each congressional district; (2) the proportional plan, awarding electoral votes in states in direct proportion to the popular vote gained in the state by each candidate; and (3) the automatic plan, awarding all of each state\u2019s electoral votes directly on a winner-take-all basis to the statewide vote winners. Major reforms of the system can be effected only by constitutional amendment, a process that requires two-thirds approval by both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states, usually within a period of seven years. This report will be updated as events warrant. For further information, please consult CRS Report RL32611, The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections, by Thomas H. Neale, and CRS Report RL32612, The Electoral College: Reform Proposals in the 108th Congress, by Thomas H. Neale.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL30804", "sha1": "f53746b5ca4b7e3c954df08e972a4aa3611c4554", "filename": "files/20041105_RL30804_f53746b5ca4b7e3c954df08e972a4aa3611c4554.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30804", "sha1": "a578446752e9473b198c32136eacd0418658210a", "filename": "files/20041105_RL30804_a578446752e9473b198c32136eacd0418658210a.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1631/", "id": "RL30804 2001-01-16", "date": "2001-01-16", "retrieved": "2005-06-11T06:08:34", "title": "The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals", "summary": "Following the closely contested presidential election of 2000, it is anticipated that Congress may revisit the issue of Electoral College reform. Although some reforms could be effected through federal or state statutes, most would require overcoming the considerable hurdles encountered by proposed constitutional amendments: two-thirds approval by both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states, usually within a period of seven years.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20010116_RL30804_c39a9c90b7e0f6eef8a0dd251dfe5253af304aae.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20010116_RL30804_c39a9c90b7e0f6eef8a0dd251dfe5253af304aae.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elections", "name": "Elections" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Electoral college - Law and legislation", "name": "Electoral college - Law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Presidents", "name": "Presidents" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions" ] }